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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 labels a layer as “CGL (250)” whereas the instant specification refers to this layer as “charge generation layer 250” (see instant ¶ [0102]). Additionally, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 5 recites “119” and “OS”, but these are not mentioned in the instant specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For consistency and ease of reading, it is recommended to replace “first blue dopant” in claim 7 and “first blue emitting dopant” in claim 8 with “first blue light emitting dopant” (as previously recited in claim 1). Likewise, it is recommended to replace “second blue dopant” in claim 7 with “second blue light emitting dopant” (as previously recited in claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the triplet excitation level of the second host (T1) is less than 2.7 eV (T1 < 2.7 eV) and more than 3.4 eV (T1 > 3.4 eV). It is unclear how a single triplet excitation level may be both T1 < 2.7 eV and T1 > 3.4 eV as these ranges do not overlap. It should be noted that the instant specification recites the triplet excitation level of the second host may be no less than 2.7 eV and may be no more than 3.4 eV, i.e., 2.7 eV ≤ T1 ≤ 3.4 eV (instant ¶ [0128]).
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as requiring the second host to have a triplet excitation level of either less than 2.7 eV or more than 3.4 eV.
Claim 6 is rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(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 1-2, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1), supporting information provided by Isobe (US 2007/0116981 A1) and Stengel (US 2022/0045277 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 7, and 11-12, Seok teaches an organic light emitting diode according to Fig. 1 including an anode, a hole transport layer, a region (first unit) including a first blue light emitting layer (light emitting layer) and a second blue light emitting layer (efficiency-improving layer), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (abstract; ¶ [0012] and [0102]-[0103]). Both of the blue light emitting layers include a first host bh1 (first host), a second host bh2 (second host), and a blue dopant, wherein bh1 is an anthracene derivative and bh2 includes anthracene as a core and dibenzofuran as a terminal group (¶ [0098]-[0099]). Anthracene is a hole-transporting group and dibenzofuran is an electron transport group (see Isobe, ¶ [0021]; Stengel, ¶ [0110) (claim 2). Accordingly, bh2 is a bipolar compound. The organic light emitting diode obtains increased luminous efficiency, and more specifically, the blue light efficiency of the device is increased owing to the composition of hosts in the blue light emitting layers (¶ [0123] and [0135]). Accordingly, the second blue light emitting layer may be considered an efficiency-improving layer.
Per claim 7, the first and second blue light emitting layers include the same blue dopant and have a peak wavelength of 440 nm to 490 nm (¶ [0065]).
Per claim 11, the organic light emitting diode further comprises charge generation layers and units comprising red light emitting layers and green light emitting layers, which are provided between the blue light emitting layers and the cathode (¶ [0026] and [0057]; Fig. 1).
Per claim 12, Seok teaches an organic light emitting diode display device having the organic light emitting diode according to Fig. 1 on a substrate 100, wherein the organic light emitting diode is connected to a driving thin film transistor provided in the first to third regions (subpixels) SP1 to SP3 (¶ [0121]). As shown in Fig. 8, the substrate 100 comprises the plurality of subpixels SP1 to SP3 and each of the subpixels comprises a thin film transistor (TFT), wherein the TFT is connected to the organic light emitting diode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Seok teaches the organic light emitting diode including two blue light emitting layers, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seok teaches the first and second blue light emitting layers each have a thickness of 300-350 Å, the electron transport layer has a thickness of 300 Å, and the electron injection layer has a thickness of 30 Å (¶ [0102]-[0103]).
Together the combination of the electron transport layer and the electron injection layer read on the claimed electron transport layer and thus has a thickness of 330 Å.
Seok fails to teach the thickness of the first blue light emitting layer is greater than the thickness of the second blue light emitting layer. However, as discussed above, the first and second blue light emitting layers each have a thickness of 300-350 Å (¶ [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a thickness of 310 Å for the first blue light emitting layer and to select a thickness of 300 Å for the second blue light emitting layer, because it would have been choosing thicknesses within the range taught by Seok, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a thickness for the blue light emitting layers of the device of Seok and possessing the benefits taught by Seok. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices having the benefits taught by Seok in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Accordingly, the first blue light emitting layer has a thickness of 310 Å, the second blue light emitting layer has a thickness of 300 Å, and the combination of the electron transport layer and the electron injection layer (claimed electron transport layer) has a thickness of 330 Å.
Claims 3, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (English translation of WO 2016068458 A obtained from Global Dossier) and Kim ‘659 (US 2013/0292659 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 5-6, and 10, Seok teaches the organic light emitting diode including two blue light emitting layers, each comprising bh1 and bh2 as first and second hosts, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seok fails to teach a third host in the blue light emitting layers.
Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a light-emitting layer comprising a first host, a second host, and a third host, wherein the three hosts are different materials (¶ [7]). Such a device obtains improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan compared to a device including a light emitting layer to which one or two hosts are applied (¶ [10]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a third host in each of the blue light emitting layers, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan, as taught by Kim.
Seok in view of Kim fails to teach the third host has the structure of one of the claimed LIH1 to LIH55.
Kim ‘659 teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 for use as a host in an emission layer of an organic optoelectronic device, wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 provides the device with improved life-span characteristics and high luminous efficiency (abstract; ¶ [0040]). Examples of compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 include chemical formula 13a (pg. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as the third host, based on the teaching of Kim ‘659. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved life-span characteristics and high luminous efficiency, as taught by Kim ‘659.
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select chemical formula 13a as the third host, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 and taught by Kim ‘659, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host in the blue light emitting layers of the device of Seok in view of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim ‘659. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising hosts represented by Chemical Formula 1 of Kim ‘659 having the benefits taught by Kim ‘659 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As shown on page 7 of Kim ‘659, chemical formula 13a is identical to the claimed LIH54 and thus comprises a triazine-based group and a carbazole-based group (claims 3 and 10).
Per claims 5-6, Seok in view of Kim and Kim ‘659 appears silent with respect to the difference between a singlet excitation level and a triplet excitation level of LIH54, the triplet excitation level of LIH54, and the energy band gap of LIH54.
The instant specification recites that the second host (LIH) has a difference between a singlet excitation level and a triplet excitation level of 0.01 eV to 0.3 eV, a triplet excitation level of 2.7 eV to 3.4 eV, and an energy band gap of not less than 2.7 eV (instant ¶ [0045]-[0046]). The instant specification teaches LIH54 is an example of the second host LIH (instant ¶ [0048]).
Since Kim ‘659 teaches chemical formula 13a, the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the difference between a singlet excitation level and a triplet excitation level being 0.01 eV to 0.3 eV, a triplet excitation level being 2.7 eV to 3.4 eV, and an energy band gap being not less than 2.7 eV 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.
Per claim 5, as discussed above, while chemical formula 13a has a triplet excitation level of 2.7 eV to 3.4 eV, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the pertinent art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adamovich (US 2007/0247061 A1) and Yoo (Yoo, Seung Il, et al. "Improvement of efficiency roll-off in blue phosphorescence OLED using double dopants emissive layer." Journal of Luminescence 160 (2015): 346-350.), supporting information provided by Wu (Wu, Jie, et al. "Computational design of host materials suitable for green-(deep) blue phosphors through effectively tuning the triplet energy while maintaining the ambipolar property." The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 117.16 (2013): 8420-8428.)
Regarding claim 8, Seok teaches the organic light emitting diode including two blue light emitting layers, each comprising a blue dopant and bh1 and bh2 as first and second hosts, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seok fails to teach the blue light emitting layers include different blue dopants. However, Seok does not teach the blue dopant of the two blue light emitting layers is limited to a singular dopant or limited to a specific structure.
Adamovich teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an emissive layer including a first phosphorescent compound and a second phosphorescent dopant (abstract). Adamovich teaches the use of two or more phosphorescent dopant significantly improves the performance of the device (¶ [0079]).
Additionally, Yoo teaches blue phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes using double dopants FIrpic and FIr6 in the emission layer (abstract). Yoo teaches double doping a device with these dopants provide the device with improved efficiency roll-off, stabilized charge balance, and enhanced energy transfer (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two phosphorescent dopants in each of the blue light emitting layers, based on the teaching of Adamovich, wherein the dopants are specifically selected as FIrpic and FIr6, based on the teaching of Yoo. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved performance, as taught by Adamovich, and to provide a device with improved efficiency roll-off, stabilized charge balance, and enhanced energy transfer, as taught by Yoo.
Yoo teaches FIrpic (first blue light emitting dopant) has an emission peak at 468 nm and a triplet energy level (T1) of 2.65 eV, and FIr6 (second blue light emitting dopant) has an emission peak at 459 nm and a T1 level of 2.72 eV (last paragraph on pg. 348). Additionally, as evidenced by Wu, FIrpic has a singlet energy level (Es) of 2.94 eV and FIr6 has a Es of 3.19 eV (Table 1 on pg. 8423).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim ‘451 (US 2015/0311451 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Seok teaches the organic light emitting diode including a hole transport layer, a first blue light emitting layer, and a second blue light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seok fails to teach an electron blocking layer.
Kim ‘451 teaches an electron blocking layer (EBL) may be included between an emission layer (EML) and a hole transport layer (HTL) of an organic light-emitting device as the EBL may help to improve the lifespan of the device (¶ [0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electron blocking layer between the hole transport layer and the blue light emitting layers, based on the teaching of Kim ‘451. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the lifespan of the device, as taught by Kim ‘451.
Accordingly, the electron blocking layer is in at least electrical contact with the first blue light emitting layer on one surface, and the second blue light emitting layer is in at least electrical contact with the opposite surface of the first blue light emitting layer.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights