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.
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species 1
Wherein the compound meets Condition 1 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 1A of claim 16
Wherein the compound does not meet Condition 1 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 1A of claim 16
Species 2
Wherein the compound meets Condition 2 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 2A of claim 16
Wherein the compound does not meet Condition 2 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 2A of claim 16
Species 3
Wherein the compound meets Condition 3 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 3A of claim 16
Wherein the compound does not meet Condition 3 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 3A of claim 16
Species 4
Wherein the compound meets Condition 4 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 4A of claim 16
Wherein the compound does not meet Condition 4 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 4A of claim 16
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of each species. As claimed, that meets a condition is mutually exclusive from a compound that does not meet the same condition. For Example, a compound in which X1 is Si(R4)(R5) as in condition 3, is mutually exclusive from a compound in which X1 is not Si(R4)(R5), such as, when X1 is C(R4)(R5) as required by condition 4. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for each of the above species, i.e. an election for Species 1, an election for Species 2, an election of Species 3 and an election of Species 4, for a total of FOUR separate elections for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1 – 20 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclass or electronic resources or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example, a compound that meets condition 1 would yield a compound with mutually different features compared to a compound that does not meet condition 1. A compound that meets condition 2 would yield a compound with mutually different features compared to a compound that does not meet condition 2. A compound that meets condition 3 would yield a compound with mutually different features compared to a compound that does not meet condition 3. A compound that meets condition 4 would yield a compound with mutually different features compared to a compound that does not meet condition 4.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Justin O. Ehresmann (Reg. No. 73,867) on April 9, 2026, a provisional election was made to prosecute the species wherein the compound meets Condition 4 of claims 1 and 13 which corresponds to Condition 4A of claim 16. Affirmation of this election must be made by Applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, under 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on January 24, 2022 and December 26, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0010224 and KR10-2022-00185022 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 March 18, 2026.
Claims 1 – 14 and 16 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 29, 2022 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (WO2020149716A1, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 7, 13, 14, and 16 – 18, Kang 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 (In Example 3, as described in [0433 – 0436], Kang describes the production of a device including a substrate, anode, emission layer, and cathode.)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
320
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the condensed cyclic compound emits light and is present in an amount of from about 0 parts by weight to about 50 parts by weight (In Example 3 of Kang, the emission layer was provided with a dopant material compound A-2
PNG
media_image2.png
140
152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in an amount of 3% by weight ([0434]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 is C(R4)(R5); X2 and X3 are N(R6) and N(R8); Y1 is B; Ar1 to Ar3 are each independently a C6 carbocyclic group; d1 to d3 are each 1; L1 to L3 are each single bonds; a1 to a3 are each 1; R1 and R2 are each hydrogen; R3 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group; R6 and R8 are both a substituted C6 carbocyclic group wherein the substituent is a C4 alkyl group. The compound satisfies Condition 4 in claims 1 and 13. This compound reads on Formula 1-1 in claim 16 wherein Z11 – Z13, Z21 – Z23; and Z31 – Z33 are all C(E) and the compound meets Condition 4A. The compound reads on Formula 1-2 in claim 17 wherein E12 and E22 are hydrogen and E32 is a C1 alkyl group. The compound reads on Formula 2 of claim 18 wherein X1a is C; X1b is not a bond; Ar11 and Ar21 are an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group.)
The device further comprising a first compound that is a hole-transporting compound represented by Formula a
PNG
media_image3.png
194
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(In the device of Example 3, compound HT-B was provided in a hole transporting layer
PNG
media_image4.png
122
138
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X11 is N(R19); R11 to R18 are all hydrogen and R19 is *-(L11)a11-(A11)b11; a11 is 2 and L11 are both a C6 cyclic group; b11 is 1 and A11 is N(Q1)(Q2) wherein Q1 and Q2 are both a C6 carbocyclic group.)
The device further comprising a second compound that is an electron-transporting compound represented by Formula b
PNG
media_image5.png
168
420
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(In the device of Example 3, compound ET-B was provided as an electron transport layer
PNG
media_image6.png
138
170
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X21 to X23 are all N; L21 and L22 are each a single bond; a21 and a22 are each 1; a23 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; a23 is 2; A21 and A22 are both an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; A23 is a substituted C10 carbocyclic group.)
As per claim 10, Kang teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue or blue-green light ([0298]: “In one embodiment of the present specification, the light-emitting layer comprising the compound represented by Formula 1… is blue.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kang (WO2020149716A1, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 7, 13, 14, and 16 – 18 above.
As per claim 19, Kang appears silent with respect to the property of a lowest excitation triplet energy level. However, since Kang teaches compounds with the same structure disclosed by Applicant, the property of a lowest excitation triplet energy level is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise . Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112. Alternatively, if the material of Kang does not have the property as claimed in the instant application, then it must be due to a limitation that is not currently claimed. If there is any difference between the above composition and the composition of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO2020149716A1, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 7, 13, 14, and 16 – 19 above and further in view of Kim (US20210104681A1).
As per claims 8 and 9, Kang does not teach:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a third compound and the third compound is a transition metal containing compound, wherein the metal-containing compound is represented by Formula c-3
PNG
media_image7.png
242
274
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches an emission layer that comprises a boron-containing compound (Abstract). This is similar to the emission layer of Kang. Kim further teaches that the emission layer includes a compound including a metal element having an atomic number of 40 or more (Abstract). Kim teaches compound PT1
PNG
media_image8.png
148
318
media_image8.png
Greyscale
as a specific example of this compound ([0210]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula c-3 wherein A31 and A34 are substituted heterocyclic groups of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms, A32 and A33 are unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; T31 and T33 are both a direct linkage; T32 is -O-. Kim teaches that by including this metallic compound, intersystem crossing occurs, resulting in the transfer of triplet excitons generated from the host materials to the boron compound, and creating improved efficiency ([0212 – 0213]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a Pt-based compound in the emission layer of Kang, motivated by the desire to predictably provide a device with improved efficiency as taught by Kim ([0212 – 0213]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO2020149716A1, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 7, 13, 14, and 16 – 19 above and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 11, Kang does not teach:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the thin-film transistor includes 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.
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 Kang 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (WO2020149716A1, using the provided machine translation) and Jeong (US20170162796A1) as applied to claims 1 – 7, 11, 13, 14, and 16 – 19 above and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 12, the prior art combination does not teach:
The electronic apparatus further comprising a color filter or a color conversion layer
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 10, 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN109810106A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 3, and 13 – 17, Huang 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 ([0102]: “An electroluminescent device having at least one anode, at least one cathode, and at least one light-emitting layer, wherein the at least one light-emitting layer contains the light-emitting composition.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
320
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the condensed cyclic compound emits light (Huang teaches that the light emitting layer contains a compound of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image9.png
170
224
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Abstract). A particular compound taught by Huang is compound HS-3
PNG
media_image10.png
194
174
media_image10.png
Greyscale
on Page 9, which does not contain the claimed X2 group of condition 4. However, in the definitions for La and Lb, Huang teaches that the atoms can be selected from among O, N(R), C(R)(R), and Si(R)(R) ([0121]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inveniton to replace one of the C(R)(R) groups with an O atom and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 and X3 are C(R4)(R5); X2 is O; Y1 is N; Ar1 to Ar3 are each independently a C6 carbocyclic group; d1 to d3 are each 1; L1 to L3 are each single bonds; a1 to a3 are each 1; R1 to R3 are all a substituted C6 carbocyclic group, wherein the substituents are two C1 alkyl groups. The compound satisfies Condition 4 in claims 1 and 13. This compound reads on Formula 1-1 in claim 16 wherein Z11 – Z13, Z21 – Z23; and Z31 – Z33 are all C(E) and the compound meets Condition 4A. The compound reads on Formula 1-2 in claim 17 wherein E12, E22, and E32 are all a substituted C6 carbocyclic group, wherein the substituents are two C1 alkyl groups.)
Huang includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Huang 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 higher energy transfer efficiency (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Huang teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Huang as Huang demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As per claim 10, Huang teaches:
Wherein the emission layer emits blue or blue-green light ([0028]: “The preferred host and guest material composition should be easy to prepare and have good energy transfer efficiency so that when applied to blue light-emitting device… it can achieve a high external quantum efficiency with a small doping ratio.”)
As per claim 18, Huang teaches compounds with phenyl substituents instead of methyl substituents off of the carbon atoms such as compound HS-6
PNG
media_image11.png
220
184
media_image11.png
Greyscale
on Page 9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to similarly modify modified compound HS-3 above to replace the methyl groups in the position corresponding to claimed X1 with phenyl groups and arrive at a compound that reads on Formula 2 wherein X1a is C; X1b is not a bond; Ar11 and Ar21 are an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group.
Huang includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Huang 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 higher energy transfer efficiency (Abstract), 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 19, Huang appears silent with respect to the property of a lowest excitation triplet energy level. However, since Huang teaches compounds with the same structure disclosed by Applicant, the property of a lowest excitation triplet energy level is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence other. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
As per claim 20, the only difference between claimed modified compound HS-3 above and claimed compound
PNG
media_image12.png
154
144
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is the third methyl group substituent off of the phenyl rings. However, Huang teaches compounds with alkyl substituents in the claimed location, such as HS-21
PNG
media_image13.png
236
216
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional alkyl substituent in the para position of the phenyl ring of compound HS-3 and to choose an alkyl group of any amount of carbons, such as one carbon, and arrive at claimed compound 18.
Huang includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Huang 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 higher energy transfer efficiency (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claims 4 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN109810106A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 10, 13 – 20 above and further in view of Kim (US20210104681A1).
As per claims 4 – 9, Huang teaches that the polycyclic condensed compound is provided in an emission layer with a second, transition metal compound as required by claim 8 ([0032 – 0041]). Huang teaches compound Pt-9 as an example of a suitable organometallic compound
PNG
media_image14.png
178
188
media_image14.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on claimed Formula c-3 in claim 9 wherein A31 and A34 are substituted heterocyclic groups of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms, A32 and A33 are unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; T31 and T33 are both a direct linkage; T32 is -O-. Huang teaches that the condensed heterocyclic compound and the transition metal compound relationship exhibits high energy transfer efficiency ([0052]).
Huang does not teach:
An amount of the condensed cyclic compound is in a range of about 0 parts by weight to about 50 parts by weight based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the emission layer
The light emitting device comprising a first compound that is a hole transporting compound represented by Formula a
PNG
media_image15.png
198
280
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The light emitting device comprising a second compound that is an electron-transporting compound represented by Formula b
PNG
media_image16.png
170
402
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches emission layers of organometallic compounds that contain a condensed polycyclic compound of Formula 4
PNG
media_image17.png
178
284
media_image17.png
Greyscale
and an organometallic compound represented by Formula 3C
PNG
media_image18.png
130
270
media_image18.png
Greyscale
([0065 – 0068]). This is similar to the composition of the emission layer of Huang. Kim further teaches that the use of the compounds improves the energy transfer between compounds ([0212]). This is the same mechanism as the emission layer of Huang. Kim teaches that the emission layer additionally contains a hole transport host, represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image19.png
108
264
media_image19.png
Greyscale
and an electron host represented by Formula 10
PNG
media_image20.png
132
286
media_image20.png
Greyscale
([0065 – 0068]). A specific example of the hole transport host taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image21.png
148
274
media_image21.png
Greyscale
([0210]), which reads on Formula a wherein X11 is N(R19); R11 to R18 are hydrogen; R19 is *-(L11)a11-(A11)b11 wherein L11 is an unsubstituted π-electron rich C6 cyclic group; a11 is 1; A11 is an unsubstituted π-electron rich C12 cyclic group; b11 is 1. A specific example of the electron transport host taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image22.png
212
282
media_image22.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula b wherein X21 to X23 are N; L21 to L23 are each a single bond; a21 to a23 are 1; A21 and A22 are both an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; A23 is a substituted C12 heterocyclic group substituted with one C6 carbocyclic group. Kim teaches that when all the four compounds are used in the emission layer, the resulting device exhibits improved efficiency ([0212 – 0213]). Kim further teaches that the polycyclic compound is present in the emission layer in an amount of 0.25 wt% to about 5 wt% based on the total weight of the emission layer ([0234]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a dual-host system to the emission layer of Huang, wherein one host is a hole transporting compound represented by Formula a and the other host is an electron transporting compound represented by Formula b, motivated by the desire to predictably provide a device with improved efficiency as taught by Kim ([0212 – 0213]). It further would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the condensed polycyclic compound of Huang in the claimed amount because Kim teaches that the claimed amount is a predictably suitable amount of a polycyclic compound in a four-component emission layer composition ([0234]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN109810106A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 10, 13 – 20 above and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1).
As per claim 11, Huang does not teach:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor wherein the thin-film transistor includes 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.
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 Huang 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN109810106A, using the provided machine translation) and Jeong (US20170162796A1) as applied to claims 1 – 3, 10, 13 – 20 above and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 12, the prior art combination does not teach:
The electronic apparatus further comprising a color filter or a color conversion layer
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
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20210008872A1 teaches heterocyclic condensed compounds and could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
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