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 .
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites compounds 21, 23-24, 45, and 47-48 which read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein Z3 is a C4 alkyl group. However, claim 11 (of which claim 20 depends upon) recites n3 is an integer from 1 to 10 (and therefore Z3 must be present) wherein Z3 is an electron donating group or an electron withdrawing group. Claim 11 recites the electron withdrawing group may be a C1-C60 alkyl group substituted with -F or cyano, and further recites the electron donating group is selected from -N(R6)(R7) or a π electron-rich C3-C60 cyclic group. That is, neither the electron withdrawing group nor the electron donating group of claim 11 may be selected as an unsubstituted alkyl group. Thus, Z3 may not be selected as an unsubstituted alkyl group. Since compounds 21, 23-24, 45, and 47-48 do not satisfy all the limitations of Formula 1, it is unclear how compounds 21, 23-24, 45, and 47-48 read on claim 11. For purposes of examination, compounds 21, 23-24, 45, and 47-48 will be interpreted as not present.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 20, compounds 21, 23-24, 45, and 47-48 do not properly depend from the formula recited in claim 11. If compounds 21, 23-24, 45, and 47-48 are selected, they do not satisfy all the requirements of Formula 1. Thus claim 20 does not properly depend from claim 11.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 11-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 11-14, 16, and 18, Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element having excellent luminous efficiency and life by including a cyano-substituted polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0012] and [0642]). Hatakeyama teaches examples thereof including compound 1-25 (pg. 54).
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
347
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1-25:
PNG
media_image2.png
63
31
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-25 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
CY1 to CY3 are each a C6 carbocyclic group;
X1 is N(R4);
Y1 is B;
Z1 is an electron donating group that is -N(R6)(R7), and Z2 is not required to be present;
Z3 is an electron withdrawing group of cyano;
n1 and n3 are each 1 and n2 is 0;
R1, R3, and R5 are not required to be present, and R2, R4, R6, and R7 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (claim 13);
d1 and d3 are each 0 and d2 is 1;
Ar1 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
E1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (claim 12);
k1 is 1 (claim 12); and
R10a is not required to be present.
As the π electron-deficient nitrogen-containing C1-C60 cyclic group and the π electron-rich C3-C60 cyclic group are not required to be present, the limitations of claim 14 are met.
Additionally, the CY3 moiety is represented by Formula 3-2 (claim 18).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 8, Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element having excellent luminous efficiency and life by including a cyano-substituted polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0012] and [0642]). The organic EL element has a structure of: anode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, light emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer, and cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises 0.1 to 10% by weight of the polycyclic aromatic compound of general formula (1) based on the total weight of the light emitting layer (¶ [0009], [0234], and [0250]). Hatakeyama teaches examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) including compound 1-25 (pg. 54).
Hatakeyama fails to teach a device specifically comprising compound 1-25.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 1-25 in a device having the structure as described above, wherein the light emitting layer comprises 0.1 to 10% by weight of compound 1-25, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hatakeyama according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with excellent luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
As discussed above, compound 1-25 reads on the claimed Formula 1.
Per claim 8, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 8 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or condensed cyclic compound. Hatakeyama teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Hatakeyama according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Regarding claims 7, 15, 17, and 19, Hatakeyama teaches the device including compound 1-25, as described above with respect to claims 3 and 11.
(1):
PNG
media_image3.png
113
115
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1-25:
PNG
media_image2.png
63
31
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-25 fails to include an electron donating group in the location of the claimed Z2. However, in formula (1), Hatakeyama teaches rings A to C may each be substituted, wherein examples thereof include N(Ph)2 as shown in compound 1-251 (¶ [0012]; structure on pg. 67).
1-251:
PNG
media_image4.png
69
67
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Hatakeyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the phenyl substituent
PNG
media_image2.png
63
31
media_image2.png
Greyscale
with N(Ph)2 as shown in compound 1-251
PNG
media_image4.png
69
67
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, because Hatakeyama teaches a substituent of ring C may suitably be selected as N(Ph)2. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful in the light emitting layer of the device of Hatakeyama and possess the benefits taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 1-25 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein n1 and n2 are each 1 (claim 15); and the CY1-CY2 moiety is represented by Formula 2-2 (claim 17).
Per claim 7, Hatakeyama appears silent with respect to the emission layer emitting light having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm. Additionally, per claim 19, Hatakeyama appears silent with respect to compound 1-25 having a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less.
The instant specification recites emission layers including the condensed cyclic compound represented by instant Formula 1 may emit blue light, which may have a maximum emission wavelength of about 400 nm to about 500 nm (¶ [00192]). The instant specification further recites emission layers including instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 (which are compounds of the instant Formula 1) have a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm (see Table 3 on instant pgs. 134-135).
Additionally, the instant specification recites that the compound represented by Formula 1 may have a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less (see instant ¶ [00112]-[00118]). The instant further recites instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 (which are compounds of the instant Formula 1) each have a HOMO -4.80 eV or less and a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less (see Table 2 on instant pg. 131).
Since Hatakeyama teaches the modified compound 1-25, which is a compound that reads on the instant Formula 1 as discussed above and is substantially identical in structure to instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72, the emission layer comprising the modified compound 1-25 emitting light having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Additionally, the modified compound 1-25 having a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less 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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Hatakeyama teaches the device including the compound 1-25 in the light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 3.
Hatakeyama fails to teach the light emitting layer further includes a hole-transporting compound, an electron-transporting compound, or a metal-containing compound. However, Hatakeyama does teach the polycyclic aromatic compound of general formula (1) is a fluorescent material (¶ [0047]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes a host that is a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host and a dopant that includes both a phosphorescent dopant that is a transition metal complex and a fluorescent dopant (abstract; ¶ [0017]). Such a device results in a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance (¶ [0023]).
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 use a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transport host in the light emitting layer of the device of Hatakeyama and to further include a phosphorescent dopant that is a transition metal complex to provide a device with a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance, as taught by Kim.
The hole transporting host reads on the claimed first compound, the electron transporting host reads on the claimed second compound, and the phosphorescent dopant reads on the claimed third compound.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Hatakeyama teaches the apparatus including the compound 1-25 in the light emitting layer of claim 8, as described above.
Hatakeyama fails to teach an electronic apparatus comprising the OLED and a thin-film transistor.
Jeong teaches a light emitting display device including a thin film transistor (TNT) and a light emitting diode, wherein the TNT includes an N-type oxide semiconductor layer, a source electrode, and a drain electrode (abstract and col. 2 lines 64-67). Jeong teaches the cathode electrode of the OLED may electrically contact the drain electrode of the TFT (col. 6, lines 54-58). As the cathode is electrically connected to the anode, the anode would also be electrically connected to the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches the light emitting display including the TNT substantially overcomes one or more of the problems of the related art, which includes low mobility of the semiconductor layer, leakage current, and increased contact resistance (col. 1, 12-45).
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 include the device of Hatakeyama as the OLED of the light emitting display device of Jeong, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong, and to obtain a device having excellent luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents).
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama teaches the apparatus including the compound 1-25 in the light emitting layer of claim 8, as described above.
Hatakeyama fails to teach wherein the device further includes a color conversion layer or color filter layer.
Yoon teaches an organic light emitting diode display device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection (abstract). This device comprises a first substrate 210 that includes a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and a second substrate 260 facing the first substrate (first half of pg. 3, first half of pg. 4, and Fig. 4). A color filter layer 220 is located between the organic light emitting diode 240 and the first substrate 210, and corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions (middle of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4). An antireflective layer 230 includes a color conversion pattern 232, which is located between the first substrate 210 and organic light emitting diode (bottom of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4).
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 in the device of Hatakeyama a substrate comprising a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and to further provide in the device a second substrate, a color filter layer located between the device and the substrate, and an antireflective layer including a color conversion pattern located between the substrate and the device, as shown in Yoon’s Fig. 4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection, as taught by Yoon.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-20, Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element having excellent luminous efficiency and life by include a cyano-substituted polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) (¶ [0012] and [0642]). The organic EL element has a structure of: anode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, light emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer, and cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises 0.1 to 10% by weight of the polycyclic aromatic compound of general formula (1) based on the total weight of the light emitting layer (¶ [0009], [0234], and [0250]). Hatakeyama teaches examples thereof including compound 1-383 (pg. 74).
Hatakeyama fails to teach a device specifically comprising compound 1-383.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compound 1-383 in a device having the structure as described above, wherein the light emitting layer comprises 0.1 to 10% by weight of compound 1-383, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hatakeyama according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with excellent luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
(1):
PNG
media_image3.png
113
115
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1-383:
PNG
media_image5.png
128
157
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound 1-383 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it includes an alkyl group in the location of the claimed E1. However, Hatakeyama does teach in general formula (1) that X1 and X2 may each be N-R wherein R may be a substituted aryl (¶ [0012]).
Geum teaches a compound represented by Formula 1 provides an organic light emitting device having excellent light emitting efficiency, low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long service life (¶ [0012] and [0020]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include the compound below on page 28.
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image6.png
147
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Geum’s compound:
PNG
media_image7.png
175
254
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in compound 1-383, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute each of the t-butyl-substituted phenyl groups in the location of R with terphenyl groups, as shown in Geum’s compound above, to arrive at a compound represented by Geum’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Geum. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with excellent light emitting efficiency, low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long service life, as taught by Geum.
The modified compound 1-383 reads on Geum’s Formula 1 wherein: Cy1 and Cy2 are each a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring; R1 is an unsubstituted heterocyclic group, R2, R3, R5, and R8 are each hydrogen, and R4, R6, R7, an R9 are not required to be present; m1 is 1 and m2 and m3 are each 5; Z1 to Z4 are each CH; and n1 and n2 are each 2 (see Geum, ¶ [0012]-[0017]). Accordingly, the modified compound 1-383 is expected to obtain the benefits of Geum.
The modified compound 1-383 is reproduced below in comparison the claimed Formula 1.
1:
PNG
media_image1.png
347
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
modified 1-383:
PNG
media_image8.png
323
438
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 1-383 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
CY1 to CY3 are each a C6 carbocyclic group;
X1 is N(R4);
Y1 is B;
Z1 and Z2 are each an electron withdrawing group of cyano (claim 15);
Z3 is an electron donating group that is a π electron-rich C12 cyclic group of carbazole (claim 14);
n1 to n3 are each 1 (claim 15);
R1 to R3 and R5 to R7 are not required to be present, and R4 is an unsubstituted C18 carbocyclic group (claim 13);
d1 to d3 are each 0;
Ar1 is a C6 carbocyclic group;
E1 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (claim 12);
k1 is an integer of 2 (claim 12); and
R10a is not required to be present.
Additionally, the CY1-CY2 moiety reads on Formula 2-2 (claim 17); the CY3 moiety reads on the Formula 3-2 (claim 18); and the modified compound 1-383 reads on the claimed compound 40 (claim 20).
Per claim 8, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 8 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device and/or condensed cyclic compound. Hatakeyama in view of Geum teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the OLED of Hatakeyama in view of Geum according to claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Per claim 7, Hatakeyama in view of Geum appear silent with respect to the emission layer emitting light having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm. Additionally, per claim 19, Hatakeyama in view of Geum appear silent with respect to the modified compound 1-383 having a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less.
The instant specification recites emission layers including the condensed cyclic compound represented by instant Formula 1 may emit blue light, which may have a maximum emission wavelength of about 400 nm to about 500 nm (¶ [00192]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include instant compound 40 (see instant pg. 25). The instant specification further recites emission layers including instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 (which are compounds of the instant Formula 1) have a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm (see Table 3 on instant pgs. 134-135).
Additionally, the instant specification recites that the compound represented by Formula 1 may have a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less (see instant ¶ [00112]-[00118]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include instant compound 40 (see instant pg. 25). The instant further recites instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72 (which are compounds of the instant Formula 1) each have a HOMO -4.80 eV or less and a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less (see Table 2 on instant pg. 131).
Since Hatakeyama in view of Geum teach the modified compound 1-383, which is a compound that reads on the instant Formula 1 as discussed above, is identical in structure to the instant compound 40 disclosed by the Applicant, and is substantially identical in structure to instant compounds 14, 25, 49, 57, and 72, the emission layer comprising the modified compound 1-383 emitting light having a maximum emission wavelength of 400 nm to 500 nm is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Additionally, the modified compound 1-383 having a HOMO of -4.80 eV or less and/or a LUMO of -1.30 eV or less 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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Hatakeyama in view of Geum teach the device including the modified compound 1-383 in the light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 3.
Hatakeyama in view of Geum fail to teach the light emitting layer further includes a hole-transporting compound, an electron-transporting compound, or a metal-containing compound. However, Hatakeyama does teach the polycyclic aromatic compound is a fluorescent material (¶ [0047]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer, wherein the emission layer includes a host that is a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host and a dopant that includes both a phosphorescent dopant that is a transition metal complex and a fluorescent dopant (abstract; ¶ [0017]). Such a device results in a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance (¶ [0023]).
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 use a combination of a hole transporting host and an electron transport host in the light emitting layer of the device of Hatakeyama in view of Geum and to further include a phosphorescent dopant that is a transition metal complex to provide a device with a high external quantum efficiency and a high efficiency at a high luminance, as taught by Kim.
The hole transporting host reads on the claimed first compound, the electron transporting host reads on the claimed second compound, and the phosphorescent dopant reads on the claimed third compound.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Hatakeyama in view of Geum teaches the apparatus including the modified compound 1-383 in the light emitting layer of claim 8, as described above.
Hatakeyama in view of Geum fails to teach an electronic apparatus comprising the OLED and a thin-film transistor.
Jeong teaches a light emitting display device including a thin film transistor (TNT) and a light emitting diode, wherein the TNT includes an N-type oxide semiconductor layer, a source electrode, and a drain electrode (abstract and col. 2 lines 64-67). Jeong teaches the cathode electrode of the OLED may electrically contact the drain electrode of the TFT (col. 6, lines 54-58). As the cathode is electrically connected to the anode, the anode would also be electrically connected to the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches the light emitting display including the TNT substantially overcomes one or more of the problems of the related art, which includes low mobility of the semiconductor layer, leakage current, and increased contact resistance (col. 1, 12-45).
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 include the device of Hatakeyama in view of Geum as the OLED of the light emitting display device of Jeong, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong, and to obtain a device having excellent luminous efficiency and life, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama (English translation of JP 2021063074 obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Geum (US 2021/0277026 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoon (English translation of KR 20180074644 A obtained by Google Patents).
Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama in view of Geum teaches the apparatus including the modified compound 1-383 in the light emitting layer of claim 8, as described above.
Hatakeyama in view of Geum fail to teach wherein the device further includes a color conversion layer or color filter layer.
Yoon teaches an organic light emitting diode display device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection (abstract). This device comprises a first substrate 210 that includes a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and a second substrate 260 facing the first substrate (first half of pg. 3, first half of pg. 4, and Fig. 4). A color filter layer 220 is located between the organic light emitting diode 240 and the first substrate 210, and corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions (middle of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4). An antireflective layer 230 includes a color conversion pattern 232, which is located between the first substrate 210 and organic light emitting diode (bottom of pg. 4, and see Fig. 4).
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 in the device of Hatakeyama in view of Geum a substrate comprising a white pixel region, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and to further provide in the device a second substrate, a color filter layer located between the device and the substrate, and an antireflective layer including a color conversion pattern located between the substrate and the device, as shown in Yoon’s Fig. 4. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device that can efficiently prevent external light reflection, as taught by Yoon.
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