DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/229,358 filed on 2 August 2023.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant' s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS). The IDS(es) has/have been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group I invention in the reply filed on 9 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 4-9 and 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3,10-13 and 20-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1: claim 1 states, in relevant part: “wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host, and wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof.” The Examiner respectfully asserts that nowhere in the originally filed disclosure does Applicant disclose the claimed combination (1) wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host and (2) wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility of the first blue host (see Rejection of claim 1 under §112(b), below, regarding the interpretation of “thereof”). Instead, the only description of the limitation “and wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof” appears in [0083] of the instant application, which states, in the entirety:
The first blue host 362a has relatively high hole affinity and the second blue host 362b has relatively high electron affinity. In other words, the first blue host 362a has hole mobility faster than hole mobility of the second blue host 362b and the second blue host 362b has electron mobility faster than electron mobility of the first blue host 362a. Alternatively, each of the first blue host 362a and the second blue host 362b can have the hole mobility slower than the electron mobility thereof.
Notably, [0083] of the instant application expressly discloses the limitations as alternatives, such that a claimed light emitting diode according to the instant application may include a limitation “wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility of the first blue host” or a limitation “wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host,” but not both limitations. [0083] of the instant application appears to be the only portion of the disclosure describing the limitation “wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof,” such that nowhere in the original disclosure does Applicant describe any combination of the alternatives, including the combination recited in currently amended independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is directed to subject matter the specification fails to describe.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 21, which depend from claim 1, are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: claim 12 states, in relevant part: “wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host, and wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof.” The Examiner respectfully asserts that nowhere in the originally filed disclosure does Applicant disclose the claimed combination (1) wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host and (2) wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility of the first blue host (see Rejection of claim 1 under §112(b), below, regarding the interpretation of “thereof”). Instead, the only description of the limitation “and wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof” appears in [0083] of the instant application, which states, in the entirety:
The first blue host 362a has relatively high hole affinity and the second blue host 362b has relatively high electron affinity. In other words, the first blue host 362a has hole mobility faster than hole mobility of the second blue host 362b and the second blue host 362b has electron mobility faster than electron mobility of the first blue host 362a. Alternatively, each of the first blue host 362a and the second blue host 362b can have the hole mobility slower than the electron mobility thereof.
Notably, [0083] of the instant application expressly discloses the limitations as alternatives, such that a claimed light emitting diode according to the instant application may include a limitation “wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility of the first blue host” or a limitation “wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host,” but not both limitations. [0083] of the instant application appears to be the only portion of the disclosure describing the limitation “wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof,” such that nowhere in the original disclosure does Applicant describe any combination of the alternatives, including the combination recited in currently amended independent claim 12. Thus, claim 12 is directed to subject matter the specification fails to describe.
Claims 13, 20, and 22, which depend from claim 12, are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons as claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
The rejections of claims 12, 13, and 20 according to the Non-Final Rejection mailed 23 March 2026 are withdrawn, responsive to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
Further rejections under § 112(b) appear below.
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 1 and 12 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.
“The essential inquiry pertaining to this requirement is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular subject matter with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity. ‘As the statutory language of “particular[ity]” and “distinct[ness]” indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.’” MPEP 2173.02(II) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 1: claim 1 states, in relevant part: “wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host, and wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof.” It is unclear whether the term “thereof” refers to the electron mobility of either (1) the first blue host, or (2) the second blue host. For the purposes of examination, the relevant language has been interpreted according to interpretation (1).
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 21, which depend from claim 1, are rejected under § 112(b) for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12: claim 12 states, in relevant part: “wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof.” It is unclear whether the term “thereof” refers to the electron mobility of either (1) the first blue host, or (2) the second blue host. For the purposes of examination, the relevant language has been interpreted according to interpretation (1).
Claims 13, 20, and 22, which depend from claim 12, are rejected under § 112(b) for at least the same reasons as claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims, or present a sufficient showing that the claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0059767 (filed Aug. 2, 2021) (hereinafter “Kang”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0199929 (published June 23, 2022) (hereinafter “Park 1”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0123637 (filed Aug. 11, 2022) (hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kang discloses: An organic light emitting diode comprising:
a first electrode (FIG. 3, first electrode 110, [0116]);
a second electrode facing the first electrode (FIG. 3, second electrode 150 facing the first electrode 110, [0116]); and
an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and second electrode (FIG. 3, interlayer 130, [0061]), and
including at least one emitting material layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the emission layer 132-1 includes first and second emission layers 132a-1/132b-1, [0126]).
Kang does not specifically disclose wherein the emissive layer includes a red emitting material layer and a blue emitting material layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Park 1 discloses a light emitting diode (FIG. 7, light emitting diode display device 500, [0148]) including a first electrode (FIG. 7, first electrode 510, [0150]);
a second electrode facing the first electrode (FIG. 7, second electrode 570 facing the first electrode 510, [0150]); and an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and second electrode (FIG. 7, depicting an “emissive layer” comprising a plurality of light emitting material layers, e.g., R-EML1 528 and B-EML1 524, [0151]), and including at least one emitting material layer, wherein the at least one emitting material layer includes: a red emitting material layer (FIG. 7, e.g., R-EML1 528); and a blue emitting material layer (FIG. 7, e.g., B-EML1 524). Regarding the configuration of the light emitting material layers, in [0059], Park 1 states: “At this time, since each stack ST1, ST2, and ST3 is configured to include one or two emitting material layers, it is easy to control a charge balance, which is advantageous in a manufacturing process.” Park 1 further states in [0060]: “Further, the red emitting material layer 168 and the second blue emitting material layer 164 adjacent to each other are configured to include the phosphorescence dopant, and it is possible to increase the luminous efficiency compared to the configuration including the fluorescence dopant.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Kang by substituting the configuration of the red and blue light emitting material layers of Park 1 in order to improve charge balance control and luminous efficiency. See Park 1 [0059]-[0060].
Kang in view of Park 1 does not specifically disclose a first a first blue emitting material layer disposed between the red emitting material layer and the second electrode, and including a first blue host; and a second blue emitting material layer disposed between the first blue emitting material layer and the second electrode, and including a second blue host, wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host, and wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses a first a first blue emitting material layer (FIG. 3, depicting a first emitting layer 511, [1537]) disposed between a first electrode and a second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first emitting layer 511 is disposed between an anode 3 and a cathode 4, [1533]), and including a first blue host (FIG. 3, [0570]: “The first emitting layer contains the first host material. The first host material and the second host material contained in the second emitting layer are different compounds.”; [0572]: “In the organic EL device according to the exemplary embodiment, it is preferable that the first emitting layer contains a third compound that fluoresces as the first emitting compound, and the third compound is a compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480 nm.”); and a second blue emitting material layer (FIG. 3, depicting a second emitting layer 512, [1537]) disposed between the first blue emitting material layer and the second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the second emitting layer 512 is disposed between the first light emitting layer 511 and the cathode 4, [1533]), and including a second blue host (FIG. 3, [0613]: “The second emitting layer contains the second host material. The second host material and the first host material contained in the first emitting layer are different compounds.”; [0617]: “In the organic EL device according to the exemplary embodiment, it is preferable that the second emitting layer contains a fourth compound that fluoresces as the second emitting compound, and the fourth compound is a compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480 nm.”), wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host (FIG. 3, [0661]: “[I]t is also preferable that a hole mobility μh(H1) of the first host material and a hole mobility μh(H2) of the second host material satisfy a relationship of a numerical formula (Numerical Formula 31) below. . . . μh(H1)>μh(H2) (Numerical Formula 31)”). Regarding the configuration of the blue light emitting layers, in [0661], Nakamura states: “When the first host material and the second host material satisfy the relationship of the numerical formula (Numerical Formula 31), the compound contained in the charge generating unit can be further prevented from deteriorating.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Kang and Park 1 by substituting the blue light emitting layer configuration of Nakamura in order to prevent deterioration of the display device. See Nakamura [0661].
Moreover, substitution of the emitting layers 511/512 of Nakamura for the blue light emitting material configuration of Kang and Park 1 would result in a configuration wherein the first emitting material 511 is disposed between the red light emitting material layer R-EML 528 and the second electrode 150.
Further, regarding the relationship between the hole mobility and electron mobility properties of the host materials, in [0662], Nakamura further discloses “it is also preferable that the hole mobility μh(H1) of the first host material, an electron mobility μe(H1) of the first host material, the hole mobility μh(H2) of the second host material, and an electron mobility μe(H2) of the second host material satisfy a relationship of a numerical formula (Numerical Formula 32) below. When the first host material and the second host material satisfy the relationship of the numerical formula (Numerical Formula 32), the compound contained in the charge generating unit can be further prevented from deteriorating. μe(H1)/μh(H1))<(μe(H2)/μh(H2)) (Numerical Formula 32)” Thus, noted in Nakamura, the electron mobility and hole mobility of the first and second emitting layers 511/512 are a result-effective variable for optimizing deterioration prevention and thus extending lifetime of the display device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the hole mobility and electron mobility of the emitting layers 511/512, identified by Nakamura as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a relationship wherein the hole mobility of the first host is less than the electron mobility of the first host in order to achieve a desired reduction in deterioration of the display device and improvement in display device lifetime, as disclosed in Nakamura in [0662]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Park 1 and Nakamura further discloses wherein the first blue host has an electron mobility slower than an electron mobility of the second blue host (FIG. 3, [0663]: “[I]t is also preferable that the electron mobility μe(H1) of the first host material and the electron mobility μe(H2) of the second host material satisfy a numerical formula (Numerical Formula 33) below. When the first host material and the second host material satisfy the relationship of the numerical formula (Numerical Formula 33), a recombination ability between holes and electrons in the first emitting layer is improved. μe(H1)<μe(H2) (Numerical Formula 33)”).
Regarding claim 10, Park 1 and Nakamura does not specifically disclose wherein the second blue host is selected from the group consisting of 9,10-di(naphthalen-2-yl)anthracene, 2-methyl-9,10-bis(naphthalen-2- yl)anthracene, 2-tert-Butyl-9,10-di(naphthen-2-yl)anthracene, 9,10-di(naphthalen-2-yl)-2- phenylanthracene, 9-phenyl-10-(p-tolyl)anthracene, 9-(1-naphthyl)-10-(p-tolyl)anthracene, 9-(2- naphthyl)-10-(p-tolyl)anthracene, 2-(3-(10-phenylanthracen-9-yl)-phenyl)dibenzo[b,d]furan, 2- (4-(10-phenylanthracen-9-yl)phenyl)dibenzo[b,d]furan and combinations thereof.
In [0249], however Kang discloses wherein a host material may include, e.g., 9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene (ADN).
Accordingly, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known host such as one including 9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene (ADN), as disclosed by Kang in [0249], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07 (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1960)). One would be motivated to choose 9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene (ADN) over other materials depending on manufacturing considerations such as cost of materials or time it takes to process the layer.
Regarding claim 11, Kang in view of Park 1 and Nakamura further discloses wherein the emissive layer (FIG. 3, interlayer 130) includes:
a first emitting part disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein there are m emitting units 130, wherein m is equal to, e.g., 4, including a first emitting unit 130-1 between the first electrode 110 and the second electrode 150, [0118]);
a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein there are m emitting units 130, wherein m is equal to, e.g., 4, including a second emitting unit 130-2 between the first emitting unit 130-1 and the second electrode 150, [0118]);
a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein there are m emitting units 130, wherein m is equal to, e.g., 4, including a third emitting unit 130-3 (130-m-1) between the second emitting unit 130-2 and the second electrode 150, [0118]);
a fourth emitting part disposed between the third emitting part and the second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein there are m emitting units 130, wherein m is equal to, e.g., 4, including a fourth emitting unit 130-4 (130-m) between the third emitting unit 130-3 (130-m-1) and the second electrode 150, [0118]);
a first charge generation layer disposed between the first emitting part and the second emitting part (FIG. 3, depicting wherein there are m-1 charge generation layers 134, wherein m is equal to, e.g., 4, including a first charge generation layer 134-1 between the first emitting unit 130-1 and the second emitting unit 130-2, [0119]);
a second charge generation layer disposed between the second emitting part and the third emitting part (FIG. 3, depicting wherein there are m-1 charge generation layers 134, wherein m is equal to, e.g., 4, including a second charge generation layer 134-2 (134-m-2) between the second emitting unit 130-2 and the third emitting unit 130-3 (130-m-1), [0119]); and
a third charge generation layer disposed between the third emitting part and the fourth emitting part (FIG. 3, depicting wherein there are m-1 charge generation layers 134, wherein m is equal to, e.g., 4, including a third charge generation layer 134-3 (134-m-1) between the third emitting unit 130-3 (130-m-1) and the fourth emitting unit 130-4 (130-m), [0119]), and
wherein one of the first to fourth emitting parts includes the at least one emitting material layer (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the emission layer 132-1 includes first and second emission layers 132a-1/132b-1, and, as modified by Park 1 and Nakamura, would include the red light emitting layer R-EML1 528, first emitting layer 511, and second emitting layer 512).
Regarding claim 21, Kang in view of Park 1 and Nakamura further discloses an organic light emitting device comprising: a substrate (FIG. 7, substrate 100, [0380]); and the organic light emitting diode of claim 1 over the substrate (FIGS. 3/7, light emitting device 30 including interlayer 130, [0116]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, Park 1, and Nakamura, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2009093982A (published Apr. 30, 2009) (hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 3, Kang in view of Park 1 and Nakamura does not specifically disclose wherein the second blue host has a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level lower than a HOMO energy level of the first blue host.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto discloses a display device (FIG. 1, organic electroluminescence device 1, Translation at 1) comprising a first blue emitting material layer disposed between a first light emitting material layer and a second electrode and including a first blue host (FIG. 1, depicting first blue light emitting layer 6B1 between a light emitting layer 6G and electrode 8 and comprising a hole transporting host material), and a second blue emitting material layer disposed between the first blue emitting material layer and the second electrode and including a second blue host (FIG. 1, depicting second blue light emitting layer 6B2 disposed between first blue light emitting layer 6B1 and electrode 8 and comprising an electron transporting host material), wherein the second blue host has a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level lower than a HOMO energy level of the first blue host (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the HOMO energy level of the first blue light emitting layer is higher than the HOMO energy level of the second blue light emitting layer, Translation at 4). Regarding the relative energy levels of the blue light emitting layers, Yamamoto states: “On the other hand, holes supplied from the anode are supplied to the first blue light emitting lay through the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, and the green light emitting layer. Since the host material of the first blue light emitting layer is formed of a hole transporting material, the holes supplied to the green light emitting layer are easily supplied to the first blue light emitting layer. On the other hand, holes passing through the first blue light-emitting layer are blocked by the second blue light-emit lay because the host material of the second blue light-emitting layer is formed of an electron-transporting material, and holes into the red light- emitting layer. Flow is suppressed. This is because, in addition to the fact that the host material of the second blue light emitting lay is an electron transporting material having a high electron mobility, the energy level of the HOMO of the host material of the first blue light emitting layer is high. This is because holes are larger than the energy gap at the interface between the first blue light emitting layer and the second blue light emitting layer, making it difficult for holes to move to the second blue light emitting
As a result, many carriers accumulate at the interface between the first blue light emitting lay and the second blue light emitting and the emission luminance of the blue light emitting layer increases. In addition, since the supply of carriers to the light emitting layer and the green light emitting layer is suppressed, red, blue, and green light emission luminances are deuniform, and well-balanced white light emission is obtained. In addition, since carriers are not concentrated in one light emitting layer, the light emitting life of each of the red, blue, and green light emitting layers is deuniform, and an organic EL device having a long life as a whole can be provided. Further, since the problem that carriers do not pass through the red light emitting layer, the blue light emitting lay and the green light emitting layer and do not contribute to light emission is eliminated, an organic EL device with high light emission efficiency can be provided.” Translation at 5.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Kang, Park 1, and Nakamura by adding the HOMO energy level relationship of Yamamoto in order to improve luminance uniformity, improve the life of the light emitting layers, and improve emission efficiency. See Yamamoto, Translation at 5.
Claims 12, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0016588 (filed Mar. 25, 2022) (hereinafter “Park 2”) in view of Park 1 and Nakamura.
Regarding independent claim 12, Park 2 discloses: An organic light emitting diode comprising:
a first electrode (FIG. 6C, first electrode EL1, [0083]);
a second electrode facing the first electrode (FIG. 6C, second electrode EL2, [0083]); and
an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (FIG. 6C, depicting an “emissive layer” comprising a plurality of light emitting stacks, [0083]),
wherein the emissive layer includes:
a first emitting part disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (FIG. 6C, stack ST1 between the first electrode EL1 and second electrode EL2, [0083]);
a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode (FIG. 6C, stack ST2 between the stack ST1 and second electrode EL2, [0083]);
a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode (FIG. 6C, stack ST3 between the stack ST2 and second electrode EL2, [0083]);
a fourth emitting part disposed between the third emitting part and the second electrode (FIG. 6C, stack ST4 between the stack ST3 and second electrode EL2, [0083]);
a first charge generation layer disposed between the first emitting part and the second emitting part (FIG. 6C, charge generation layer CGL1 between stack ST1 and stack ST2, [0083]);
a second charge generation layer disposed between the second emitting part and the third emitting part (FIG. 6C, charge generation layer CGL2 between stack ST2 and stack ST3, [0083]); and
a third charge generation layer disposed between the third emitting part and the fourth emitting part (FIG. 6C, charge generation layer CGL3 between stack ST3 and stack ST4, [0083]),
wherein the first emitting part includes a blue emitting material layer (FIG. 6C, light emitting layer BEML1, [0125]), wherein the second emitting part includes a third blue emitting material layer (FIG. 6C, light emitting layer BEML2, [0125]), the fourth emitting part includes a fourth blue emitting material layer (FIG. 6C, light emitting layer BEML4, [0125]), and the third emitting part includes a green emitting material layer (FIG. 6C, e.g., light emitting layer GEML3-1, [0125]).
Park 2 does not specifically disclose wherein the first emitting part includes a red emitting material layer and a blue emitting material layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Park 1 discloses a light emitting diode (FIG. 7, light emitting diode display device 500, [0148]) including a first electrode (FIG. 7, first electrode 510, [0150]); a second electrode facing the first electrode (FIG. 7, second electrode 570 facing the first electrode 510, [0150]); and an emissive layer disposed between the first electrode and second electrode (FIG. 7, depicting an “emissive layer” comprising a plurality of light emitting material layers, e.g., R-EML1 528 and B-EML1 524, [0151]), and including at least one emitting material layer, wherein the at least one emitting material layer includes: a red emitting material layer (FIG. 7, e.g., R-EML1 528); and a blue emitting material layer (FIG. 7, e.g., B-EML1 524). Regarding the configuration of the light emitting material layers, in [0059], Park 1 states: “At this time, since each stack ST1, ST2, and ST3 is configured to include one or two emitting material layers, it is easy to control a charge balance, which is advantageous in a manufacturing process.” Park 1 further states in [0060]: “Further, the red emitting material layer 168 and the second blue emitting material layer 164 adjacent to each other are configured to include the phosphorescence dopant, and it is possible to increase the luminous efficiency compared to the configuration including the fluorescence dopant.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Park 2 by substituting the configuration of the red and blue light emitting material layers of Park in order to improve charge balance control and luminous efficiency. See Park 1 [0059]-[0060].
Park 2 in view of Park 1 does not specifically disclose a first blue emitting material layer disposed between the red emitting material layer and the first charge generation layer and including a first blue host; and a second blue emitting material layer disposed between the first blue emitting material layer and the first charge generation layer and including a second blue host, wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host, and wherein the first blue host has the hole mobility slower than an electron mobility thereof.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses a first a first blue emitting material layer (FIG. 3, depicting a first emitting layer 511, [1537]) disposed between a first electrode and a second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the first emitting layer 511 is disposed between an anode 3 and a cathode 4, [1533]), and including a first blue host (FIG. 3, [0570]: “The first emitting layer contains the first host material. The first host material and the second host material contained in the second emitting layer are different compounds.”; [0572]: “In the organic EL device according to the exemplary embodiment, it is preferable that the first emitting layer contains a third compound that fluoresces as the first emitting compound, and the third compound is a compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480 nm.”); and a second blue emitting material layer (FIG. 3, depicting a second emitting layer 512, [1537]) disposed between the first blue emitting material layer and the second electrode (FIG. 3, depicting wherein the second emitting layer 512 is disposed between the first light emitting layer 511 and the cathode 4, [1533]), and including a second blue host (FIG. 3, [0613]: “The second emitting layer contains the second host material. The second host material and the first host material contained in the first emitting layer are different compounds.”; [0617]: “In the organic EL device according to the exemplary embodiment, it is preferable that the second emitting layer contains a fourth compound that fluoresces as the second emitting compound, and the fourth compound is a compound that emits light having a maximum peak wavelength in a range from 430 nm to 480 nm.”), wherein the first blue host has a hole mobility faster than a hole mobility of the second blue host (FIG. 3, [0661]: “[I]t is also preferable that a hole mobility μh(H1) of the first host material and a hole mobility μh(H2) of the second host material satisfy a relationship of a numerical formula (Numerical Formula 31) below. . . . μh(H1)>μh(H2) (Numerical Formula 31)”). Regarding the configuration of the blue light emitting layers, in [0661], Nakamura states: “When the first host material and the second host material satisfy the relationship of the numerical formula (Numerical Formula 31), the compound contained in the charge generating unit can be further prevented from deteriorating.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosed display device of Kang and Park 1 by substituting the blue light emitting layer configuration of Nakamura in order to prevent deterioration of the display device. See Nakamura [0661].
Moreover, substitution of the blue light emitting layer configuration would result in a configuration wherein a first emitting layer 511 is disposed between the red emitting material layer and the first charge generation layer (Park 1 FIG. 6C; Park 2 FIG. 7; Nakamura FIG. 3; depicting wherein the emitting layer 511 would be disposed between the R-EML1 528 and the first charge generation layer CGL1) and a second blue emitting material layer disposed between the first blue emitting material layer and the first charge generation layer (Park 1 FIG. 6C; Park 2 FIG. 7; Nakamura FIG. 3; depicting wherein the second emitting layer 512 would be disposed between the first emitting layer 511 and the first charge generation layer CGL1).
Further, regarding the relationship between the hole mobility and electron mobility properties of the host materials, in [0662], Nakamura further discloses “it is also preferable that the hole mobility μh(H1) of the first host material, an electron mobility μe(H1) of the first host material, the hole mobility μh(H2) of the second host material, and an electron mobility μe(H2) of the second host material satisfy a relationship of a numerical formula (Numerical Formula 32) below. When the first host material and the second host material satisfy the relationship of the numerical formula (Numerical Formula 32), the compound contained in the charge generating unit can be further prevented from deteriorating. μe(H1)/μh(H1))<(μe(H2)/μh(H2)) (Numerical Formula 32)” Thus, noted in Nakamura, the electron mobility and hole mobility of the first and second emitting layers 511/512 are a result-effective variable for optimizing deterioration prevention and thus extending lifetime of the display device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the hole mobility and electron mobility of the emitting layers 511/512, identified by Nakamura as a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a relationship wherein the hole mobility of the first host is less than the electron mobility of the first host in order to achieve a desired reduction in deterioration of the display device and improvement in display device lifetime, as disclosed in Nakamura in [0662]. See MPEP § 2144.05 (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Regarding claim 13, Park 2 in view of Park 1 and Nakamura further discloses wherein the first blue host has an electron mobility slower than an electron mobility of the second blue host (FIG. 3, [0663]: “[I]t is also preferable that the electron mobility μe(H1) of the first host material and the electron mobility μe(H2) of the second host material satisfy a numerical formula (Numerical Formula 33) below. When the first host material and the second host material satisfy the relationship of the numerical formula (Numerical Formula 33), a recombination ability between holes and electrons in the first emitting layer is improved. μe(H1)<μe(H2) (Numerical Formula 33)”).
Regarding claim 22, Park 2 in view of Park 1 and Nakamura further discloses an organic light emitting device comprising: a substrate (FIG. 4B, base substrate, [0066]); and the organic light emitting diode of claim 12 over the substrate (FIG. 6C, display module DM-1 including light emitting device ED, which may be light emitting device ED-2, [0070]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park 2 in view of Park 1 and Nakamura, and further in view of Kang.
Park 2 in view of Park 1 and Nakamura does not specifically disclose wherein the second blue host is selected from the group consisting of 9,10-di(naphthalen-2-yl)anthracene, 2-methyl-9,10-bis(naphthalen-2- yl)anthracene, 2-tert-Butyl-9,10-di(naphthen-2-yl)anthracene, 9,10-di(naphthalen-2-yl)-2- phenylanthracene, 9-phenyl-10-(p-tolyl)anthracene, 9-(1-naphthyl)-10-(p-tolyl)anthracene, 9-(2- 57naphthyl)-10-(p-tolyl)anthracene, 2-(3-(10-phenylanthracen-9-yl)-phenyl)dibenzo[b,d]furan, 2- (4-(10-phenylanthracen-9-yl)phenyl)dibenzo[b,d]furan and combinations thereof.
In [0249], however Kang discloses wherein a host material may include, e.g., 9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene (ADN).
Accordingly, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known host such as one including 9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene (ADN), as disclosed by Kang in [0249], since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07 (citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1960)). One would be motivated to choose 9,10-di(2-naphthyl)anthracene (ADN) over other materials depending on manufacturing considerations such as cost of materials or time it takes to process the layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Publication Nos.: 2023/0165022 (filed Nov. 23, 2022) (disclosing a two layer blue light emitting layer configuration with similar hole mobility relationship); 2023/0255045 (filed Jan. 22, 2021) (disclosing a two layer blue light emitting layer configuration with similar hole mobility relationship); 2024/0023436 (filed Mar. 11, 2021) (disclosing a two layer blue light emitting layer configuration with similar hole mobility relationship).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D WEILAND whose telephone number is (703)756-4760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ADAM D WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights