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 22 April 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 13-14, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendments to claims 1, 13, and 19 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see sections (i) and (iv) of the reply filed 22 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 6-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”), and further in view of Himeshima et al. (JP 08-003547 A/JP 1996-003547—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Himeshima”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 3-5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”) and Himeshima et al. (JP 08-003547 A/JP 1996-003547—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Himeshima”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the current claims are nonobvious over the cited prior art due to unexpected results—decreased red light emission efficiency and increased green light emission efficiency as well as the thermal stability imparted by different host materials. Applicant argues that only impermissible hindsight could have led to the modifications described in the rejections. See sections (ii) and (iii) of Applicant’s reply.
With respect to the allegations of unexpected results, the results do not appear to be commensurate in scope with the current claims. The results are based on a specific device structure where specific light emitting dopants are used in addition to specific layer thicknesses and dopant concentrations. Each of these factors could change the emission characteristics of any given emissive layer relative to the other emissive layers.
With respect to the arguments regarding thermal stability specifically, the cited prior art teaches improved lifetime, efficiency and voltage. As described below, the Kim ‘263 reference teaches that the selected combination of compounds provides benefits of greater lifetime. This indicates that the selected compound combination from the prior art would have deterioration rates that are less than expected compared to the prior art in general. Thus, it is not clear that Applicant’s proffered evidence represents results that are greater than expected based in light of the teachings of the Kim ‘263 reference. See MPEP 716.02(a). Additionally, the added benefits of improved efficiency and improved voltage taught by Kim ‘263 indicate that the evidence for obviousness outweigh the evidence for nonobviousness. See MPEP 716.02(c).
With respect to the argument that only impermissible hindsight could have led to the modifications described in the rejections, only information from the prior art was relied upon in making the rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
While it is true that Kim ‘263 does not consider a larger stack of emissive layers, this is taught by Kim. Kim teaches that that the host materials of the light emitting layers of the phosphorescent stack can comprise a host mixture comprising a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host in general. While Kim ‘263 only teaches advantages of a single red light emitting layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a red-light emitting layer having the benefits taught by Kim ‘263 in the device of Kim.
Finally, the providing of example hosts in the teachings of Kim does not teach away from using other hosts taught by the prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-2, 6-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”), and further in view of Himeshima et al. (JP 08-003547 A/JP 1996-003547—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Himeshima”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 3-5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”) and Himeshima et al. (JP 08-003547 A/JP 1996-003547—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Himeshima”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejections of claims 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Himeshima does not teach all of the features with respect to claim 13. Applicant additionally asserts that Himeshima does not teach all of the features with respect to claim 19.
The features of claims 13 and 19 are taught by the combination of Kim, Kim ‘263 and Himeshima. That Himeshima does not disclose all of the features of the claims is not persuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant makes no additional arguments regarding the combination of references. Therefore the argument is not persuasive.
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) 1-2, 6-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 8-11: Kim discloses a light emitting device comprising a substrate, a first electrode and a second electrode facing each other {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0070]-[0071]}.
Kim describes several options for the exact structure of the light emitting device of Fig. 3 of Kim.
The device comprises a first blue stack {element 210 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0076]-[0083]}, a first charge generation layer {element 240 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0111]-[0113]}, and a phosphorescent stack {element 220 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0086], [0097], and [0108] where the red emitter can be an iridium complex, which is a phosphorescent emitter} disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode.
The phosphorescent stack comprises a hole transport layer, a red-light emitting layer, a green light emitting layer, and a yellow-green light emitting layer between the red-light emitting layer and the green light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer sequentially stacked {paragraphs [0086], [0097]}.
The light-emitting dopant of the red-light emitting layer can be equated with a first dopant and can be an iridium complex, which is a phosphorescent emitter {paragraph [0108]}. The peak emission wavelength can be between 610 nm and 640 nm {paragraph [0101]}.
The first charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and an n-type charge generation layer where the p-type charge generation layer is in contact with the hole transport layer of the phosphorescent stack and the n-type charge generation layer is on the opposite surface of the p-type generation layer to the hole transport layer {paragraphs [0112]-[0113]}.
The organic light emitting diode further comprises a third emitting part including a second blue emitting material layer and positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0119]-[0120]}, and a second charge generation layer positioned between the second emitting part and the third emitting part {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0126]-[0128]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a device of Kim having the structure described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modifications 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, which in this case would be to provide a device that emits light through the cathode rather than the anode.
Kim does not teach that the phosphorescent stack comprises an electron transporting host material having the structure of the instant Formula 1.
However, Kim teaches that the host materials of the light emitting layers of the phosphorescent stack can comprise a host mixture comprising a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host {paragraph [0107]}.
Kim does not exemplify a specific pair of hole transporting host and electron transporting host.
Kim ‘263 teaches combinations of electron transporting host materials and hole transporting materials in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0024] and [0247]-[0249]}.
Kim ‘263 exemplifies the compounds shown below {Table 11, Example 24}.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
398
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘263 teaches that the host composition of Kim ‘263 provides improved lifetime, efficiency, and driving voltage.
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 Kim described above by using the host materials of Kim ‘263 shown above in the phosphorescent stack of Kim, based on the teaching of Kim ‘263. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host material composition that provides improved lifetime, efficiency, and driving voltage, as taught by Kim ‘263.
Regarding claim 7: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the electron transport host has a triplet energy of 2.4 eV or less. It is reasonable to presume that the electron transport host having a triplet energy of 2.4 eV or less is inherent to Kim as modified by Kim ‘263. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The electron transporting host of Kim ‘263 has the structure of the instant exemplified host material BZC-09 in paragraph [0055] of the instant specification. The exemplified host materials of the instant specification would have the preferred properties of the instant specification. Paragraph [0218] of the specification describes that the electron transporting host can have a triplet energy of 2.4 eV or less. Because the electron transporting host of Kim ‘263 has the structure of the instant exemplified host material BZC-09, the electron transporting host of Kim ‘263 would be expected to have a triplet energy of 2.4 eV or less.
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 [prior art] product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 12: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 does not exemplify a specific host composition in which an electron transporting host comprises at least one of the instant R1 and R2 as phenyl.
However, Kim ‘263 teaches the compound shown below as another electron transporting host material {p. 11, Compound 9}.
PNG
media_image3.png
330
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim such that the compound of Kim ‘263 shown immediately above was used as the electron transporting host material, based on the teaching of Kim ‘263. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Himeshima et al. (JP 08-003547 A/JP 1996-003547—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Himeshima”).
Regarding claim 2: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 does not teach that the hole transport layer of the phosphorescent stack includes a 3,3’-biscarbazole-based compound.
Himeshima teaches biscarbazole compounds having the structure of Himeshima’s formula shown below {(pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]), (p. 4, Chemical Formula 4)}. Compounds having the structure of Himeshima’s formula are exemplified by Himeshima's compound (7), also shown below {(pp. 7-8, paragraphs [0026]-[0027] & Chemical Formula 7; Compounds of the invention are exemplified by Compounds (1) through (40).), (p. 8, Compound (7))}. Himeshima’s compounds are useful as hole transporting materials {pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]}.
[AltContent: textbox (Himeshima’s Compound (7))][AltContent: textbox (Himeshima’s Chemical Formula 4)]
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Himeshima sought to provide compounds with superior ionization potential, carrier mobility, film forming ability, and heat resistance {pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]}.
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 Kim by using the compound of Himeshima shown above as the material of the hole transport layer of the phosphorescent stack, based on the teaching of Himeshima. 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 materials in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means using a material known to have superior ionization potential, carrier mobility, film forming ability, and heat resistance, as taught by Himeshima.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0097184 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 14: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 does not teach the composition of the charge generation layer.
Liao teaches stacked organic light emitting devices comprising charge generation layers {abstract, Fig. 3}.
Liao teaches that the p-type charge generation layer can comprise an amine-based compound and a doping material {paragraphs [0064]-[0065]}.
Lee teaches that p-type charge generation layer can be doped with N-(biphenyl-4-yl)-9,9-dimethyl-N-(4-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)phenyl)-9H-fluoren-2-amine, as a dopant {paragraphs [0123], [0139], [0156], [0174]}.
Liao teaches that the n-type charge generation layer can comprise an alkali metal dopant or an alkaline earth metal dopant {paragraph [0063]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the materials taught by Liao and Lee described above for the charge generation layer, based on the teaching of Kim, Liao, and Lee. 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 optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 5: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 does not teach the thickness of the hole transporting layer.
Liao teaches stacked organic light emitting devices comprising charge generation layers {abstract, Fig. 3}.
Liao exemplifies hole transporting layers having thicknesses of 25 nm to 75 nm {paragraphs [0235], [0239], [0245], [0248], [0254], [0257]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the hole transport layer a thickness of 25 nm to 75 nm, based on the teaching of Liao. 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, which in this case would be to provide a device that emits light through the cathode rather than the anode.
Claim(s) 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”) and Himeshima et al. (JP 08-003547 A/JP 1996-003547—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Himeshima”).
Regarding claims 13, 17, and 19: Kim discloses a light emitting device comprising a substrate, a first electrode and a second electrode facing each other {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0070]-[0071]}.
Kim describes several options for the exact structure of the light emitting device of Fig. 3 of Kim.
The device comprises a first blue stack {element 210 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0076]-[0083]}, a first charge generation layer {element 240 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0111]-[0113]}, and a phosphorescent stack {element 220 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0086], [0097], and [0108] where the red emitter can be an iridium complex, which is a phosphorescent emitter} disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode.
The phosphorescent stack comprises a hole transport layer, a red-light emitting layer, a green light emitting layer, and a yellow-green light emitting layer between the red-light emitting layer and the green light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer sequentially stacked {paragraphs [0086], [0097]}.
The light-emitting dopant of the red-light emitting layer can be equated with a first dopant and can be an iridium complex, which is a phosphorescent emitter {paragraph [0108]}. The peak emission wavelength can be between 610 nm and 640 nm {paragraph [0101]}.
The first charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and an n-type charge generation layer where the p-type charge generation layer is in contact with the hole transport layer of the phosphorescent stack and the n-type charge generation layer is on the opposite surface of the p-type generation layer to the hole transport layer {paragraphs [0112]-[0113]}.
The organic light emitting diode further comprises a third emitting part including a second blue emitting material layer and positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0119]-[0120]}, and a second charge generation layer positioned between the second emitting part and the third emitting part {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0126]-[0128]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a device of Kim having the structure described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modifications 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, which in this case would be to provide a device that emits light through the cathode rather than the anode.
Kim does not teach that the phosphorescent stack comprises an electron transporting host material having the structure of the instant Formula 1.
However, Kim teaches that the host materials of the light emitting layers of the phosphorescent stack can comprise a host mixture comprising a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host {paragraph [0107]}.
Kim does not exemplify a specific pair of hole transporting host and electron transporting host.
Kim ‘263 teaches combinations of electron transporting host materials and hole transporting materials in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {paragraphs [0024] and [0247]-[0249]}.
Kim ‘263 exemplifies the compounds shown below {Table 11, Example 24}.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
398
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘263 teaches that the host composition of Kim ‘263 provides improved lifetime, efficiency, and driving voltage.
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 Kim described above by using the host materials of Kim ‘263 shown above in the phosphorescent stack of Kim, based on the teaching of Kim ‘263. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a host material composition that provides improved lifetime, efficiency, and driving voltage, as taught by Kim ‘263.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 does not teach that the hole transport layer of the phosphorescent stack includes a 3,3’-biscarbazole-based compound.
Himeshima teaches biscarbazole compounds having the structure of Himeshima’s formula shown below {(pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]), (p. 4, Chemical Formula 4)}. Compounds having the structure of Himeshima’s formula are exemplified by Himeshima's compound (7), also shown below {(pp. 7-8, paragraphs [0026]-[0027] & Chemical Formula 7; Compounds of the invention are exemplified by Compounds (1) through (40).), (p. 8, Compound (7))}. Himeshima’s compounds are useful as hole transporting materials {pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]}.
[AltContent: textbox (Himeshima’s Compound (7))][AltContent: textbox (Himeshima’s Chemical Formula 4)]
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Himeshima sought to provide compounds with superior ionization potential, carrier mobility, film forming ability, and heat resistance {pp. 3-4, paragraphs [0009]-[0011]}.
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 Kim by using the compound of Himeshima shown above as the material of the hole transport layer of the phosphorescent stack, based on the teaching of Himeshima. 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 materials in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means using a material known to have superior ionization potential, carrier mobility, film forming ability, and heat resistance, as taught by Himeshima.
Regarding claim 18: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the electron transport host has a triplet energy of 2.4 eV or less. It is reasonable to presume that the electron transport host having a triplet energy of 2.4 eV or less is inherent to Kim as modified by Kim ‘263. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The electron transporting host of Kim ‘263 has the structure of the instant exemplified host material BZC-09 in paragraph [0055] of the instant specification. The exemplified host materials of the instant specification would have the preferred properties of the instant specification. Paragraph [0218] of the specification describes that the electron transporting host can have a triplet energy of 2.4 eV or less. Because the electron transporting host of Kim ‘263 has the structure of the instant exemplified host material BZC-09, the electron transporting host of Kim ‘263 would be expected to have a triplet energy of 2.4 eV or less.
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 [prior art] product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 20: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 19, as outlined above.
Kim does not exemplify that the device of Fig. 3 of Kim is comprised in a light emitting display comprising a plurality of subpixels.
However, Kim ‘985 teaches a display device of Kim ‘985 comprising on the substrate, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, the organic light emitting diode corresponding to each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0044]}, and a 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]}. The display device additionally comprises thin film transistors in each of the subpixels {paragraphs [0041]-[0043] and Fig. 1}.
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 described above by including the display device structures 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.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Kim et al. (US 2021/0395263 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘263”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0097184 A1) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 15: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 does not teach the composition of the charge generation layer.
Liao teaches stacked organic light emitting devices comprising charge generation layers {abstract, Fig. 3}.
Liao teaches that the p-type charge generation layer can comprise an amine-based compound and a doping material {paragraphs [0064]-[0065]}.
Lee teaches that p-type charge generation layer can be doped with N-(biphenyl-4-yl)-9,9-dimethyl-N-(4-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)phenyl)-9H-fluoren-2-amine, as a dopant {paragraphs [0123], [0139], [0156], [0174]}.
Liao teaches that the n-type charge generation layer can comprise an alkali metal dopant or an alkaline earth metal dopant {paragraph [0063]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the materials taught by Liao and Lee described above for the charge generation layer, based on the teaching of Kim, Liao, and Lee. 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 optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 16: Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Kim ‘263 does not teach the thickness of the hole transporting layer.
Liao teaches stacked organic light emitting devices comprising charge generation layers {abstract, Fig. 3}.
Liao exemplifies hole transporting layers having thicknesses of 25 nm to 75 nm {paragraphs [0235], [0239], [0245], [0248], [0254], [0257]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the hole transport layer a thickness of 25 nm to 75 nm, based on the teaching of Liao. 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, which in this case would be to provide a device that emits light through the cathode rather than the anode.
Conclusion
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