DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang (US 20230200219 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 7, 12-19, . Huang teaches an organic electroluminescent device, including a substrate, an anode layer, a plurality of light-emitting functional layers and a cathode layer formed on the substrate in sequence; the light-emitting functional layer includes at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron blocking layer, and an electron transporting layer where the electron blocking layer contains an amine derivative (paragraph 58). A specific amine derivative can be represented by P24 (page 8):
PNG
media_image1.png
328
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
P24 reads of applicants’ Formula 1 and 1-1 wherein R11-R12 = H; Z11 = t-butyl; R13-R14 = methyl; a1= 0; a3 = 0; Ar21 = fluorene; Ar31 = phenyl; Z31 = naphthyl; R32 and Z32 = H (per claims 1, 7, 12-19).
The organic material layer can be divided into multiple regions. For example, the organic material layer may include a hole transporting region, a light emitting layer, and an electron transporting region (paragraph 59) (per claim 2).
The electron blocking layer containing P24 is in the hole transporting region (paragraph 63) (per claim 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20230200219 A1) in view Suh (US 2006/0124924).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Huang teaches an organic electroluminescent device in other types of organic electronic devices, including organic field-effect transistors (paragraph 57), but fails to mention the other components.
Suh teaches thin film transistor (TFT) and an organic electroluminescent display including the same. The organic electroluminescent display includes: a gate electrode; source and drain electrodes that are insulated from the gate electrode; an organic semiconductor layer that is insulated from the gate electrode and electrically connected to the source and the drain electrodes (abstract).
As both Huang and Suh teach electronic devices and Suh teaches the electronic device used in a transistor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the OLED of Huang in a known configuration for a transistor as taught by Suh with respect to the source, drain, gate and active layer which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 7).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20230200219 A1) in view Suh (US 2006/0124924) and Yoon (US 2017/0269435).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Huang and Such teach the invention of claim 7 but fails to mention the additionally components.
Yoon discloses an organic light emitting diode (“OLED”) display device and the like, based on a light emitting scheme thereof (paragraph 5). A color conversion layer configured to improve light efficiency (paragraph 3).
The office views the above as a generic teaching shows that a color conversion layer configured to improve light efficiency in devices which include an OLED.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have added a color conversion layer to the device of Huang and Such since Yoon discloses that a color conversion layer is configured to improve light efficiency which would have included, absent unexpected results (per claims 9-10).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20230200219 A1) in view of Seki (US 2013/0105785).
Regarding Claim, Huang teaches the device of claim 1 but fails to mention an apparatus.
Seki teaches an image display apparatus including an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor (TFT) device wherein the anode or a cathode of the organic light-emitting device is connected to a drain electrode or a source electrode of the TFT device. The thin-film transistor device serves as a device configured to apply an electrical current to the organic light-emitting device (paragraph 52). The organic light-emitting device also contains a color filter (paragraph 50).
As both Huang and Seki teaches organic light-emitting devices and Seki teaches an organic light-emitting device configured in an electronic apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have used the organic light-emitting device of Huang in known application areas which would have included in an electronic apparatus as taught by Seki which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
A comprehensive search of the prior art did not show the instant limitation. The closest prior is Huang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights