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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on May 27, 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed May 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the office action filed March 16, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 6, 8, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toyoshima as set forth in the office action filed March 16, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 7, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima as set forth in the office action filed March 16, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 16, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima in view of Watanabe as set forth in the office action filed March 16, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 11 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima and further in view of Cho as set forth in the office action filed March 16, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 8 and 11 – 21 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1 – 8, 14 – 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20220407028A1).
As per claims 1 and 21, Lee 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, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer and a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole transport layer and a hole transport auxiliary layer between the hole transport layer and the emission layer, wherein the refractive index of the hole transport layer is higher than a refractive index of the hole transport auxiliary layer (Abstract: “A light emitting diode of an embodiment includes a first electrode, a hole transport region disposed on the first electrode, an emission layer disposed on the hole transport region, an electron transport region disposed on the emission layer, and a second electrode disposed on the electron transport region. The hole transport region includes a first hole transport layer disposed adjacent to the first electrode and having a first refractive index, a second hole transport layer disposed adjacent to the emission layer and having a second refractive index, and a third hole transport layer disposed between the first hole transport layer and the second hole transport layer and having a third refractive index which is greater than each of the first refractive index and the second refractive index.” The second hole transport layer is interpreted as the claimed hole transport auxiliary layer and the third hole transport layer is interpreted as the claimed hole transport layer.)
Wherein the hole transport layer has a single-layered structure (The third hole transport layer is a single-layer, as claimed.)
Wherein the refractive index of the hole transport auxiliary layer is 1.8 or less ([0009]: “In an embodiment, the first refractive index and the second refractive index may each be in a range of about 1.30 to about 1.80.”)
Wherein the hole transport auxiliary layer comprises a first compound which is a cyclohexyl group-containing amine-based compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
130
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches that the second hole transport layer may include a compound such as compound 1
PNG
media_image2.png
270
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein a11 is 0 so that L11 does not exist, L12 and L13 are each a benzene group and a12 and a13 are 1; R11 is an unsubstituted benzene group; R12 is an unsubstituted C10 carbocyclic group and R13 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, namely a cyclohexyl group. This compound is the same as compound 1-1
PNG
media_image3.png
164
108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in claim 21.)
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of organic light emitting diodes with excellent light emission efficiency ([0005]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 2, Lee teaches:
Wherein the refractive index of the hole transport layer is 1.8 or more and 2.4 or less ([0009]: “The third refractive index may be in a range of about 1.85 to about 2.4.)
As per claim 3, Lee teaches:
Wherein a difference in refractive index between the hole transport layer and the hole transport auxiliary layer is 0.1 or more ([0008]: “In an embodiment, a difference between the third refractive index and the first refractive index may be greater than about 0.1, and a difference between the third refractive index and the second refractive index may be greater than about 0.1.”)
As per claim 4, Lee teaches:
Wherein the hole transport auxiliary layer is in direct contact with the emission layer ([0011]: “In an embodiment, the second hole transport layer may be disposed directly below the emission layer.”)
As per claim 5, Lee teaches:
Wherein the hole transport region further comprises an electron blocking layer between the hole transport auxiliary layer and the emission layer, the hole transport auxiliary layer is in direct contact with the electron blocking layer, and the electron blocking layer is in direct contact with the emission layer (As the claim requires an electron blocking layer, but does not require any particular composition for the electron blocking layer, the electron blocking layer can be interpreted as a sub-layer of the second hole transport layer taught by Lee.)
As per claim 6, Lee teaches:
Wherein each of the hole transport layer and the hole transport auxiliary layer is thicker than the electron blocking layer ([0020]: “In an embodiment, a thickness of the first hole transport layer may be in a range of about 100 Å to about 1,000 Å, a thickness of the second hole transport layer may be in a range of about 100 Å to about 1,000 Å, and the third hole transport layer may be in a range of about 100 Å to about 1,000 Å.” Since the electron blocking layer is interpreted as a sub-layer of the second hole transport layer, it is the Examiner’s position that the sub-layer can be defined to fit the claimed relationship thickness.)
As per claim 7, Lee teaches:
Wherein a thickness of the hole transport layer is equal to or greater than a thickness of the hole transport auxiliary layer ([0017]: “In an embodiment, a thickness ratio of the first hole transport layer, the third hole transport layer, and the second hole transport layer may be in a range of about 0.1:0.8:0.1 to about 0.45:0.1:0.45.”)
As per claim 8, Lee teaches:
Wherein the hole transport layer comprises a fluorene group-containing amine-based compound (Lee teaches that the third hole transport layer may include a compound represented by Formula 2
PNG
media_image4.png
144
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which contains the claimed fluorene group ([0024]).)
As per claim 14, Lee teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is to emit phosphorescent light ([0155]: “The emission layer EML may include… a phosphorescence emitting material.”)
As per claim 15, Lee teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is to emit red light ([0155]: “The emission layer may emit any one among red light…”)
As per claim 16, Lee teaches:
Wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode ([0290]: “The second electrode EL2 may be a cathode or an anode, but embodiments are not limited thereto. For example, if the first electrode EL1 is an anode, the second cathode EL2 may be a cathode, and if the first electrode EL1 is a cathode, the second electrode EL2 may be an anode.”)
Wherein the interlayer further comprises an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode and the hole transporting region further comprises a hole injection layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer or any combination thereof and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer or any combination thereof ([0157]: “In the light emitting diode OEL of an embodiment, the electron transport region ETR is provided on the emission layer EML. The electron transport region ETR may include at least one of a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, but embodiments are not limited thereto.” & [0254]: “Referring to FIG. 10A, the hole transport region HTR may include a hole injection layer HIL and a hole transport layer HTL. The hole transport region HTR may further include at least one of a hole injection layer HIL, a hole transport layer HTL, a buffer layer (not shown), an emission auxiliary layer (not shown), and an electron blocking layer (not shown).”)
As per claim 17, Lee teaches:
Further comprising a first capping layer outside the first electrode, a second capping layer outside of the second electrode, or the first capping layer and the second capping layer ([0037]: “In an embodiment, the light emitting diode may further include a capping layer disposed on the second electrode, wherein the capping layer may have a refractive index equal to or greater than about 1.6.”)
Wherein the first capping layer and/or the second capping layer each independently comprises an amine group-containing compound…. ([0162]: “On the second electrode EL2 of the light emitting diode OEL of an embodiment, a capping layer (not shown) may be further disposed. The capping layer (not shown) may include, for example, α-NPD, NPB, TPD, m-MTDATA, Alq3, CuPc, N4,N4,N4′,N4′-tetra(biphenyl-4-yl) biphenyl-4,4′-diamine (TPD15), 4,4′,4″-tris(carbazol-9-yl) triphenylamine (TCTA), etc.”)
As per claim 18, Lee teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device ([0003]: “Various display devices used in multimedia apparatuses such as televisions, cellular phones, tablet computers, navigations, and game consoles are being developed.”)
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20220407028A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Cho (US20200028089A1).
As per claims 11 – 13, Lee teaches that the light emitting layer can be a red, phosphorescent compound ([0155]). Lee does not restrict the components of the red, light emitting layer. Lee does not specifically teach:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, and the host comprises a second compound represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image5.png
166
288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Cho teaches organic electroluminescent devices with a phosphorescent dopant and host materials ([0050]). The devices are red-emitting devices ([0087]). Cho teaches compounds of Formula (1)
PNG
media_image6.png
206
300
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0008]) and that the use of the compounds as host materials in red-emitting devices can improve lifespan while maintaining a high luminous efficiency ([0007]). A specific host material taught by Cho in the example devices is compound H1-42
PNG
media_image7.png
272
276
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X2 is O; R22 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; two R21 groups are linked via a single bond, and are further substituted with a group represented by Formula 4 wherein L41 to L43 are a C6 carbocyclic group and R43 is a C6 carbocyclic groups and R42 is hydrogen. The compound is of Formula 2-1e in claim 12.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any known red host material as the host material for the red-emitting phosphorescent layer of Lee, particularly a host material such as that claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably improve the lifespan while maintaining a high luminous efficiency as taught by Cho ([0007 – 0008]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20220407028A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 19, Lee does not teach:
Further comprising 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 the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Lee in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20220407028A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 20, Lee does not teach:
Further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of Lee because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US11,575,087) in view of Takada (US20190165273A1).
As per claim 1, Toyoshima 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, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer and a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole transport layer and a hole transport auxiliary layer between the hole transport layer and the emission layer, wherein the hole transport layer has a single-layered structure (Toyoshima teaches a device structure as in Figure 1 as described in Column 517, Line 61 – Column 518, Line 3.
PNG
media_image8.png
620
520
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The first anode side organic layer is interpreted as the claimed hole transport layer and the second anode side organic layer is interpreted as the claimed hole transport auxiliary layer.)
Wherein the refractive index of the hole transport layer is higher than a refractive index of the hole transport auxiliary layer ([Column 35, Lines 8 - 15]: “In an arrangement of the organic EL device according to the exemplary embodiment, a refractive index NM1 of a constituent material contained in the first anode side organic layer is large than a refractive index NM2 of a constituent material contained in the second anode side organic layer. When the refractive index NM1 is larger than the refractive index NM2, the organic EL device has improved light-extraction efficiency.”)
Wherein the refractive index of the hole transport auxiliary layer is 1.8 or less ([Column 6, Lines 45 – 48]: “In an arrangement of the organic EL device according to the exemplary embodiment, the refractive index of the compound containing in the second anode side organic layer is preferably 1.89 or less.”
Toyoshima teaches that the second anode side organic layer contains at least one monoamine compound selected from a formula including formula cHT3-4
PNG
media_image9.png
110
302
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, Toyoshima teaches that the groups can be substituted with a cycloalkyl group having 3 to 50 carbon atoms (Column 50, Lines 8 – 21), but Toyoshima does not specifically teach:
Wherein the hole transport auxiliary layer comprises a first compound which is a cyclohexyl group-containing amine-based compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
130
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takada teaches monoamine compounds suitable for use in hole-transport layers represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image10.png
68
214
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). The structure of Formula 1 is structurally similar to the structure of cHT3-4 of Toyoshima. Takada teaches that these compounds improve light emission efficiency ([0006]). A particular compound taught by Takada is compound 29
PNG
media_image11.png
236
366
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0025]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein L11 – L13 are all an unsubstituted benzene group, a11 and a12 are an integer of 1; a13 is an integer of 2; R11 is an unsubstituted benzene group; R12 is an unsubstituted C10 carbocyclic group; R13 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, namely a cyclohexyl group.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a compound containing a cyclohexyl group substituent as a substituent such as compound 29 as the compound of Formula cHT3-4 of Toyoshima based on the desire to predictably provide a device with improved light emission efficiency as taught by Takada ([0006]).
As per claim 2, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein the refractive index of the hole transport layer is 1.8 or more and 2.4 or less (Column 36, Lines 22 – 25: “In an arrangement of the organic EL device according to the exemplary embodiment, the refractive index NM1 of the constituent material contained in the first anode side organic layer is 1.94 or more.”)
As per claim 3, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein a difference in refractive index between the hole transport layer and the hole transport auxiliary layer is 0.1 or more (Column 35, Line 60 – Column 36, Line 10: “In an arrangement of the organic EL device according to the exemplary embodiment, the difference NM1 – NM2 between the refractive index NM1 of the constituent material contained in the first anode side organic layer and the refractive index NM2 of the constituent material contained in the second anode side organic layer satisfies a relationship of…. A numerical formula (Numerical Formula N6) below
PNG
media_image12.png
56
656
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.”)
As per claim 4, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein the hole transport auxiliary layer is in direct contact with the emission layer (As shown in the structure of Fig. 1, when there are only a first and second anode side organic layer, the second anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport auxiliary layer) is in direct contact with the emission layer).
As per claim 5, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein the hole transport region further comprises an electron blocking layer between the hole transport auxiliary layer and the emission layer, the hole transport auxiliary layer is in direct contact with the electron blocking layer, and the electron blocking layer is in direct contact with the emission layer (Toyoshima teaches an alternate device configuration in Fig 2., as described in Colum 518, Lines 4 – 15.
PNG
media_image13.png
740
534
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. The third anode side organic layer is interpreted as the claimed electron blocking layer. As shown, the third anode side organic layer is in direct contact with the emission layer and the second anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport auxiliary layer) as claimed.
As per claim 6, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein each of the hole transport layer and the hole transport auxiliary layer is thicker than the electron blocking layer (In Example 1-1 of Table 1, a device is taught with an additional third anode side organic layer. The thickness of the third anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed electron blocking layer) is 5 nm, which is less than the first anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport layer), which has a thickness of 10 nm, and the second anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport layer), which has a thickness of 40 nm.)
As per claim 7, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein a thickness of the hole transport layer is equal to or greater than a thickness of the hole transport auxiliary layer (In Column 34, Lines 45 – 50, Toyoshima teaches that the total thickness of the hole transporting zone is in a range from 20 nm to 80 nm. In Column 36, Lines 56 – 58, Toyoshima teaches that the thickness of the second anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport auxiliary layer) is 20 nm or more. This corresponds to a thickness of the first anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport layer) of 60 nm or less. These ranges include many options wherein the thickness of the first anode side organic layer is greater than the thickness of the second anode side organic layer as claimed. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).)
As per claim 8, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein the hole transport layer comprises a fluorene group-containing amine-based compound (Toyoshima teaches that the first anode side organic layer contains at least one compound selected from the group including formula cHT2-2
PNG
media_image14.png
314
662
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, which contains the claimed fluorenyl group (Column 37, Line 64 – Column 38, Line 34.)
As per claims 14 and 15, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein the emission layer is to emit red, phosphorescent light (In Fig. 7, Toyoshima teaches a device structure with a red emitting layer. In Column 534, Lines 51 – 55, Toyoshima teaches that the red emitting compound can be a phosphorescent compound.)
As per claim 16, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, and the interlayer further comprises an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode and the hole transporting region further comprises a hole injection layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer or any combination thereof and the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer or any combination thereof (In the device of Fig. 2, described in Colum 518, Lines 4 – 15 and produced in Example 1-1 in Table 1, the device includes a third anode side organic layer (which is interpreted as the claimed electron blocking layer), and also contains an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer.)
As per claim 18, Toyoshima teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device (As the light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus, Toyoshima meets the claimed limitations.)
As per claim 21, the only difference between the compound of Takada above and claimed compound 1-4
PNG
media_image15.png
174
140
media_image15.png
Greyscale
is the location of the adamantly group and the biphenylene linking group between the nitrogen atom and the cyclohexyl group. However, the compounds of Formula 1 of Takada do not require the particular bonding of the adamantly group or the biphenylene linker between the nitrogen atom and the cyclohexyl group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the biphenylene linker of compound 29 above with a phenylene linker and to move the adamantly group and arrive at claimed compound 1-4.
Takada includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Takada being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved light emission efficiency ([0006]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claim 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US11,575,087) in view of Takada (US20190165273A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16, 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Cho (US20200028089A1).
As per claims 11 – 13, Toyoshima teaches that the light emitting layer can be a red, phosphorescent compound (Column 534, Lines 51 – 55). Toyoshima does not restrict the components of the red, light emitting layer. Toyoshima does not specifically teach:
Wherein the emission layer comprises a host and a dopant, and the host comprises a second compound represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image5.png
166
288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Cho teaches organic electroluminescent devices with a phosphorescent dopant and host materials ([0050]). The devices are red-emitting devices ([0087]). Cho teaches compounds of Formula (1)
PNG
media_image6.png
206
300
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0008]) and that the use of the compounds as host materials in red-emitting devices can improve lifespan while maintaining a high luminous efficiency ([0007]). A specific host material taught by Cho in the example devices is compound H1-42
PNG
media_image7.png
272
276
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X2 is O; R22 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; two R21 groups are linked via a single bond, and are further substituted with a group represented by Formula 4 wherein L41 to L43 are a C6 carbocyclic group and R43 is a C6 carbocyclic groups and R42 is hydrogen. The compound is of Formula 2-1e in claim 12.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any known red host material as the host material for the red-emitting phosphorescent layer of the prior art combination, particularly a host material such as that claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably improve the lifespan while maintaining a high luminous efficiency as taught by Cho ([0007 – 0008]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US11,575,087) in view of Takada (US20190165273A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16, 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Cho 2 (US20160149157A1).
As per claim 17, the prior art combination does not teach:
Further comprising a first capping layer outside the first electrode, a second capping layer outside the second electrode, or the first capping layer and the second capping layer
Wherein the first capping layer and/or the second capping layer each independently comprises a carbocyclic compound, a heterocyclic compound, an amine group-containing compound, a porphin derivative, a phthalocyanine derivative, a naphthalocyanine derivative, or any combination thereof
Cho 2 teaches capping layers on OLEDs wherein the capping layer is on the second electrode (Abstract). Cho 2 teaches that the capping layer includes a heterocyclic compound including a carbazole group and a heterocyclic group bonded with the carbazole group (Abstract). Cho 2 teaches that the capping layer may protect the OLED and allow light emitted in the organic light emitting layer to be efficiently directed outwards ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of the prior art combination with a capping layer comprising an amine group-containing compound as claimed motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED with a protective layer that allows light emitted in the organic light emitting layer to be efficiently directed outwards as taught by Cho 2 ([0060]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US11,575,087) in view of Takada (US20190165273A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16, 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 19, the prior art combination does not teach:
Further comprising 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 the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of the prior art combination in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US11,575,087) in view of Takada (US20190165273A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16, 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 20, the prior art combination does not teach:
Further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of the prior art combination because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR102355848B1, published February 10, 2022 constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. US20230157155A1, could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on (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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights