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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on December 20, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on December 16, 2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 16, 2022 and September 4, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 defines a light-emitting device with a hole transport layer, an emission layer and a hole transport auxiliary layer between the hole transport layer and the emission layer, wherein a refractive index of the hole transport layer is higher than a refractive index of the hole transport auxiliary layer and the refractive index of the hole transport auxiliary layer is 1.8 or less. There are no limitations on the compositions of either the hole transport layer or the hole transport auxiliary layer. However, in the instant specification, the only compounds discussed as suitable for the hole transport auxiliary layer are mono-amine compounds with at least one cyclohexyl group. Therefore, it does not appear that Applicant has provided a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus, i.e. any combination of materials that would meet the claimed formula (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 2 – 20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 8, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toyoshima (US11,575,087).
As per claims 1 – 4, and 18, 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, 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_image1.png
620
520
media_image1.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.)
A refractive index of the hole transport layer is higher than a refractive index of the hole transport auxiliary layer, the refractive index of the hole transport auxiliary layer is 1.8 or less, the refractive index of the hole transport layer is 1.8 or more and 2.4 or less, a difference in refractive index between the hole transport layer and the hole transport auxiliary layer is 0.1 or more (In Example 1-2 in Table 1, a device is taught wherein the refractive index of the first anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport layer) is 1.96 and the refractive index of the second anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport auxiliary layer) is 1.79. The difference in the refractive index between the layers is 0.17, which is greater than 0.1 as claimed.)
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).
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device (As the light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus, Toyoshima anticipates claim 18.)
As per claims 5 and 6, 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, 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_image2.png
740
534
media_image2.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.
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 the same first and second anode side organic layers as in Example 1-2 and 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 8, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein the hole transport layer comprises a fluorene group-containing amine-based compound (In Example 1-37, in Table 1, a device is taught wherein the refractive index of the first anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport layer) is 1.99 and the refractive index of the second anode side organic layer (corresponding to the claimed hole transport auxiliary layer) is 1.79. The difference in the refractive index between the layers is 0.20, which is greater than 0.1 as claimed. The compound in the first anode side organic layer is compound HT1-3
PNG
media_image3.png
220
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, shown in column 542, which contains the claimed fluorenyl group.)
As per claim 16, Toyoshima teaches:
Wherein the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, the interlayer further comprises an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, the hole transport region further comprises a hole injection layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or any combination thereof, 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.)
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 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US11,575,087) as applied to claims 1 – 6, 8, 16 and 18 above.
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 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.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Toyoshima with a red phosphorescent compound based on the desire to predictably practice the invention of Toyoshima and based on the totality of the teachings of Toyoshima, as the emitting layers and phosphorescent compounds can be used alternatively and in combination.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US11,575,087) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US20210005814A1).
As per claims 9 and 10, Toyoshima teaches that the second anode side organic layer contains at least one monoamine compound selected from a formula including formula cHT3-3
PNG
media_image4.png
150
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein X can represent a carbon atom (Column 48, Line 47 – Column 49, Line 30). This compound reads on Formula 1 of claim 10. 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 a specific compound with the claimed cyclohexyl group.
Watanabe teaches monoamine compounds suitable for use in hole-transport layers (Abstract). Watanabe teaches structurally similar compounds to those of Toyoshima
PNG
media_image5.png
230
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0063]). Watanabe taches that the compounds preferably have a cyclohexyl group substituent in order to lower the refractive index ([0266]).
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 cyclohexyl group substituent as a substituent in a compound of Formula cHT3-3 of Toyoshima based on the desire to predictably lower the refractive index of the compound as taught by Watanabe ([0266]) and because Toyoshima teaches that the second anode side layer preferably has a lower refractive index (Column 2, Lines 10 – 31).
Claim 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoshima (US11,575,087) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16 and 18 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_image6.png
166
288
media_image6.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_image7.png
206
300
media_image7.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_image8.png
272
276
media_image8.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 Toyoshima, 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) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Cho 2 (US20160149157A1).
As per claim 17, Toyoshima 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) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 19, Toyoshima 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 Toyoshima 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) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 14 – 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 20, Toyoshima 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 Toyoshima because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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