DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application KR10-2022-0140316 filed in Korea on October 27, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
In paragraph [00182] on pg. 48, the sentence begins with “In Particular,” which is suggested to be changed to “In particular.”
On pg. 27-32, the compounds EH-1 to EH-60 of Formula 2 are shown as images with poor resolution, which results in difficulty in discerning the structures and labels. Similar instances of poor resolution were also found on pg. 38-40 for compounds HH-1 to HH-18 of Formula 4, on pg. 44-45 for Formulae 7-1 to 7-5, and on pg. 46 for Ref_EH1 and Ref_EH2 of Formula 8-1 and Formula 8-2.
For example, the compound HH-17 on pg. 40 has indistinct bonds:
PNG
media_image1.png
210
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Appropriate correction is required.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on August 24, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 24, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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 3, 5, 18, and 19 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 18: Claims 3 and 18 are represented by the compounds of Formula 2. The poor resolution of the compounds of Formula 2 {EH-1 to EH-60 as shown in claims 3 and 18} result in difficulty in discerning the structures and labels, thereby making the structures and/or labels indefinite.
Some bonds in EH-1 to EH-60 are indistinct, such as in EH-29:
PNG
media_image2.png
271
197
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims 3 and 18 are unclear.
Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2. Claim 2 requires that Formula 1 is represented by Formulas 1a to 1f. Claim 1, from which both claims 2 and 3 depend, states that “the first compound is represented by Formula 1.” Claim 3 further requires that the first compound is one of the compounds in Formula 2. The compounds recited for Formula 2 in claim 3 include formulas not met by the formulas of claim 2. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are unclear, as it is unclear if the Formula 1 or Formula 2 structures are required by claim 3.
Regarding claims 5 and 19: Claims 5 and 19 are represented by the compounds of Formula 4. The poor resolution of the compounds of Formula 4 {HH-1 to HH-18 as shown in claims 5 and 19} result in difficulty in discerning the structures and labels, thereby making the structures and/or labels indefinite.
Some bonds are indistinct in HH-1 to HH-18, such as in HH-17:
PNG
media_image3.png
265
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims 5 and 19 are unclear.
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2. Claim 2 requires that Formula 1 is represented by Formulas 1a to 1f. Claim 1, from which both claims 2 and 3 depend, states that “the first compound is represented by Formula 1.” Claim 3 further requires that the first compound is one of the compounds in Formula 2. Some compounds (EH-1 to EH-24) recited for Formula 2 in claim 3 include formulas not met by the formula of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 is of improper dependent form and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11-13, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 20240059714 A1) (hereafter "Fleetham").
Regarding claims 1 and 15: Fleetham teaches an organic light emitting diode (OLED) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and a blue emitting material layer positioned between the first and second electrodes {device structure shown on pg. 114, [0235]; device emission color shown in Table 2, pg. 116}. Fleetham teaches a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound in the emissive layer of the device, and that these three compounds are suitable for use in a device. In the OLED of Fleetham, a second compound represented by the instant Formula 3 and a third compound represented by the instant Formula 5 are taught {compounds are shown on pg. 115 as Compound 3 (second compound) and Emitter 1 (third compound)}.
Fleetham teaches a second compound represented by the instant Formula 3, shown below, where c1, c2, and c4 are 0, c3 is 1, and R23 is an unsubstituted heteroaryl group {Second compound of Fleetham is shown on pg. 115}.
PNG
media_image4.png
281
312
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Instant Formula 3
PNG
media_image5.png
200
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Second compound of Fleetham
Fleetham teaches a third compound, which is represented by the instant Formula 5, shown below, where d1 and d3 are 0, d2 and d4 are 1, R32 and R34 are alkyl groups, and R36 is an aryl group substituted with deuterated phenyl groups {third compound of Fleetham shown on pg. 115}.
PNG
media_image6.png
182
340
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Instant Formula 5
PNG
media_image7.png
384
326
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Third compound of Fleetham
However, Fleetham does not teach a device with the second and third compound of Fleetham in combination with a first compound with the structure of the instant Formula 1.
In the specification of Fleetham, Fleetham does teach that a first compound with the structure of the instant Formula 1, shown below, where each of a1-a9 are 0 and b1-b2 are each independently 1 {Compound is shown on pg. 38}.
PNG
media_image8.png
192
529
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Instant Formula 1
PNG
media_image9.png
383
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Example compound of Fleetham
Any compound suitably present in the specifications of Fleetham and disclosed by Fleetham is suitable for use in an OLED. Therefore, Fleetham teaches a first compound with the structure of the instant Formula 1 suitable for use in an OLED in combination with the second and third compound of Fleetham.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the first, second, and third compounds of Fleetham outlined above in an OLED. Given that the compounds were known and disclosed by Fleetham, it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success and use the first, second, and third compounds in an OLED. See MPEP2143(I)(E).
Fleetham does not teach a specific device with the first, second, and third compounds of Fleetham outlined above where the summation of a weight % of the first compound, a weight % of the second compound, and a weight % of the third compound is 100% and the weight % of each of the first and second compounds is greater than the weight of the third compound in the emitting material layer.
However, Fleetham teaches a device with the outlined composition of the three compounds and that the composition is a suitable composition for the emitting material layer in an OLED {Fleetham teaches a device with 40% n-type host, 48% p-type host, 12% phosphorescent dopant on pg. 114-115, [0235]}. Further, Fleetham teaches that the compounds outlined above are suitable for an OLED with the above composition as these compounds are suitably present in the specifications of Fleetham and disclosed in the specifications of Fleetham.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the modified the emitting material layer in the OLED of Fleetham such that the summation of a weight % of the first compound, a weight % of the second compound, and a weight % of the third compound is 100% and the weight % of each of the first and second compounds is greater than the weight of the third compound. Given that the compounds were known and disclosed by Fleetham and suitable for use in the emitting material layer, it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success to use the first, second, and third compounds in the composition outlined above in an organic light emitting diode. See MPEP2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 15: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above. As per claim 15, Fleetham does not specifically teach an organic light emitting device comprising a substrate, the organic light emitting diode containing the first, second, and third compounds outlined in claim 1 disposed over the substrate, and an encapsulation layer covering the organic light emitting diode. However, Fleetham teaches that the OLED of Fleetham is suitable for disposing over a substrate and encapsulation, as the devices of Fleetham are grown on a glass substrate and encapsulated with a glass lid sealed with an epoxy resin {pg. 115, [0234]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Fleetham such that an OLED containing the compounds as outlined in claim 1 is disposed over a substrate with an encapsulation layer. This device would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because the compounds, OLED, and device are taught and obviously suitable. See MPEP2143(I)(E).
Regarding claims 3 and 18: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 15, as outlined above. As per claims 3 and 18, the compound of Fleetham is the same as claimed compound EH-2, shown below {Compound is shown on pg. 38}.
Instant compound EH-2
PNG
media_image10.png
213
175
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 19: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 15, as outlined above. As per claim 4, the compound of Fleetham reads on the instant Formula 3-1. As per claims 5 and 19, the compound of Fleetham is the same as claimed compound HH-7 {Second compound of Fleetham is shown on pg. 115}.
PNG
media_image11.png
286
302
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Instant Formula 3-1
PNG
media_image12.png
184
295
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Instant compound HH-7
PNG
media_image5.png
200
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Second compound of Fleetham
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 13: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above. As per claims 11, 12, and 13, the emitting layer of Fleetham is interpreted as both the claimed first and second blue emitting material layer, wherein the claimed first and second emitting layer are sub-layers of the emitting layer of Fleetham.
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 20240059714 A1) (hereafter "Fleetham") in view of Sannomiya et al. (KR 20140113672 A; machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Sannomiya”).
Regarding claim 2: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above. For claim 2, a different interpretation of the first compound will be used.
Fleetham teaches the example compound shown below, where the polycyclic core is substituted with a tetraphenylsilane and a carbazole, and Formula I of Fleetham, where RA to RC can be independently substituted heteroaryl groups such as phenyl-substituted indolocarbazole and carbazole, as well as silyl groups such as tetraphenylsilane {compound is shown on pg. 38; Formula I is shown on pg. 1, [0006]}.
Example compound of Fleetham
PNG
media_image9.png
383
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Formula I of Fleetham
PNG
media_image13.png
216
229
media_image13.png
Greyscale
However, Fleetham does not explicitly teach a phenyl-substituted indolocarbazole substituent on the polycyclic core as represented by Formulas 1a to 1f.
Sannomiya teaches that when five or more aromatic rings are linked, the increased conjugation increases durability by improving the electronic stability and the material is expected to have improved hole and electron transport properties {pg. 76}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the carbazole substituent of the polycyclic core of the compound of Fleetham with a phenyl-substituted indolocarbazole substituent as shown in Formulas 1a to 1f, based on the teaching of Sannomiya. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the electronic stability and hole and electron transport properties, as taught by Sannomiya.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 20240059714 A1) (hereafter "Fleetham") in view of Li et al. (US 20150105556 A1) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 6: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above. For claim 6, a different interpretation of the third compound is used.
Fleetham teaches that the emitting layer can include an organometallic compound as a sensitizer, delayed fluorescence emitter, or a phosphorescent emitter {pg. 56, [0149 - 0150]}.
Fleetham teaches the general formulas of these compounds but does not specifically limit the organometallic compound {pg. 55, [0142]}.
Fleetham teaches the general structure of the ligands of the third compound, as shown below, and specifies that “embodiments where a [bidentate] ligand being coordinated to a metal can be linked with other ligands being coordinated to that metal to form a tridentate, tetradentate, pentadentate, or hexadentate ligands,” such as a bridging O between ligands {ligand general structures: pg. 55; specifications on tetradentate ligand: pg. 60, [0177]}. Fleetham teaches that the metal can be platinum {pg. 57, [0155]}.
In ligand structure 1 of Fleetham, shown below, Fleetham teaches that each of Y1 to Y8 are carbon, Ra1 is an alkyl group, and Rb and Rc are independently hydrogen.
In ligand structure 2 of Fleetham, shown below, Fleetham teaches that each of Y1 to Y11 are carbon and Ra, Rb, and Rc are independently hydrogen.
PNG
media_image14.png
256
209
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Ligand structure 1 of Fleetham
PNG
media_image15.png
256
232
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Ligand structure 2 of Fleetham
Fleetham teaches a tetradentate Pt-based organometallic compound as a component in the emission layer in an example device {Pt compound shown on pg. 115; device composition described on pg. 114, [0235]}.
However, Fleetham does not explicitly teach the use of the compounds in claim 6 in an OLED.
Li teaches tetradentate platinum emitters including the Pt compound of Li, which is the same as the claimed compound PD-2, shown below {use as emitter described on pg. [0006]; structure shown on pg. 581}.
PNG
media_image16.png
171
251
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Instant PD-2
PNG
media_image17.png
186
308
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Pt compound of Li
Li teaches that these compounds have improved stability and efficiency and provide improved efficiency and operational lifetime in organic light emitting devices {pg. 7, [0078], [0085]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a phosphorescent emitter with the structure of Formula 5 and contained in the compounds of Formula 6, such as the claimed PD-2, because Fleetham teaches that phosphorescent tetradentate Pt emitters are suitable dopants for use in organic light emitting diodes and Li teaches that compounds within the scope of Formula 6 have improved stability and efficiency and provide improved efficiency and operational lifetime in organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claim 20: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claims 1, 6, and 15, as outlined above. As per claim 20, the compound of Fleetham in view of Li is the same as the claimed compound PD-2, as outlined in claim 6.
Claims 7-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 20240059714 A1) (hereafter "Fleetham") in view of Kim et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces (2019) 11 (1): 26–30.) (hereafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 7: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Fleetham teaches the example n-type host and phosphorescent dopant of Fleetham, shown below. Fleetham appears silent with respect to the LUMO energy levels of the example n-type host of Fleetham and the phosphorescent dopant of Fleetham.
Example n-type host of Fleetham {pg. 38}
PNG
media_image9.png
383
310
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Phosphorescent dopant of Fleetham {pg. 115}
PNG
media_image7.png
384
326
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Fleetham does not teach an OLED with the combination of the above n-type host and phosphorescent dopant.
The structures of the above compounds are represented by Formula 1 and Formula 5, respectively. The instant specifications recite that the LUMO energy level of n-type hosts with the structure of Formula 1 is higher than that of phosphorescent dopants with the structure of Formula 5 {pg. 43, [00149]; pg. 49, [00184]}.
Therefore, it is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise, that n-type hosts with the structure of the instant Formula 1 have a higher LUMO energy level than phosphorescent dopants with the structure of the instant Formula 5. 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.
Further, Fleetham teaches n-type hosts structurally similar to the claimed n-type hosts and that these structurally similar n-type hosts of Fleetham have similar LUMO energy levels with respect to the claimed n-type hosts {Fleetham: pg. 113-114, Table 1; instant specifications: pg. 48, Table 1}.
Alternatively, Kim teaches an efficient and longer-lived device where the LUMO energy level of the n-type host is higher than that of the phosphorescent dopant, where the device structure leads to charge trapping to the phosphorescent dopant for reduced current density and better recombination {pg. 28-29, Fig. 3(a)}.Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, the claimed relationship between the LUMO energy levels of the n-type host and phosphorescent dopant of Fleetham would have been obvious and predictable with respect to the teachings of Fleetham in view of Kim. Further, it would be obvious to tune and modify the compounds of Fleetham within the scope of the claimed structures so that the LUMO energy level of the n-type host is higher than that of the phosphorescent dopant, as taught by Kim, for a more efficient and longer-lived device.
Regarding claim 8: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 7, as outlined above.
Fleetham teaches the example n-type host and p-type host of Fleetham, shown below. Fleetham appears silent with respect to the LUMO energy levels of the example p-type host of Fleetham, shown below.
Example p-type host of Fleetham {pg. 115}
PNG
media_image5.png
200
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Fleetham does not teach an OLED with the combination of the above n-type host and p-type host.
The structures of the above compounds are represented by Formula 1 and Formula 3, respectively. The instant specifications recite that the LUMO energy level of n-type hosts with the structure of Formula 1 is lower than that of p-type hosts with the structure of Formula 3 {pg. 43, [00149]}.
Therefore, it is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise, that n-type hosts with the structure of the instant Formula 1 have a lower LUMO energy level than p-type hosts with the structure of the instant Formula 3. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Alternatively, Kim teaches an efficient and longer lived device where the LUMO energy level of the p-type host is higher than that of the n-type host, and the LUMO energy level of the n-type host is higher than that of the phosphorescent dopant, where the device structure leads to charge trapping to the phosphorescent dopant for reduced current density and better recombination {pg. 28-29, Fig. 3(a)}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, the claimed relationship between the LUMO energy levels of the n-type and the p-type hosts of Fleetham would have been obvious and predictable with respect to the teachings of Fleetham in view of Kim. Further, it would be obvious to tune and modify the compounds of Fleetham within the scope of the claimed structures so that the LUMO energy level of the n-type host is lower than that of the p-type host, as taught by Kim, for a more efficient and longer-lived device.
Regarding claim 14: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above. As outlined above for claim 11, the emitting layer of Fleetham is interpreted as both the claimed first and second blue emitting material layer, wherein the claimed first and second emitting layer are sub-layers of the emitting layer of Fleetham. Thus, the first and fourth compounds are the same n-type host, the second and fifth are the same p-type host, and the third and sixth compounds are the same phosphorescent dopant. The same compounds have the same LUMO level energies and same relationships in LUMO level energies, which are outlined in claims 7 and 8.
Therefore, as per claim 14, the LUMO energy level of the fourth compound, which is the same as the first compound of Fleetham, is higher than the LUMO energy level of the sixth compound, which is the same as the third compound of Fleetham, and the LUMO energy level of the fourth compound is lower than the LUMO energy level of the fifth compound, which is the same as the third compound of Fleetham, and it would be obvious and to tune the compounds as needed for the optimal relationship between LUMO level energies, as taught by Kim.
Claims 9-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham et al. (US 20240059714 A1) (hereafter "Fleetham") in view of Liao et al. (US 20030170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”).
Regarding claim 9: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Fleetham teaches that the OLED of Fleetham can be stacked {pg. 59, [0169]}. Additionally, Fleetham teaches that the device of Fleetham can include a fluorescent emitter and that emissive dopants can be used in conjunction with hosts {fluorescent emitter: pg. 56, [0150]; host: pg. 60, [0184]}.
However, Fleetham does not explicitly teach the organic light emitting diode according to claim 9, further comprising a second blue emitting material layer between the first blue emitting material layer and second electrode, wherein the second blue emitting material layer includes a host and a fluorescent dopant.
Liao teaches a stacked OLED comprised of multiple blue emitting material layers between the two electrodes {blue light emitting organic layer 665 in Figure 10 is described to include two or more blue-emitting organic electroluminescent units; pg. 6, [0077-078]}. Liao also teaches that the emitting layer includes a host material doped with a guest fluorescent compound {pg. 8, [0144]}.
Additionally, Liao teaches that stacked OLEDs have improved luminance efficiency, increased brightness, and increased lifetime compared to non-stacked OLEDs {pg. 2, [0027-0030]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the OLED outlined above of Fleetham by constructing a stacked OLED, wherein a second blue emitting material layer is between the first blue emitting material layer and the second electrode, based on the teaching of Liao. Further, Fleetham teaches that the second blue emitting material layer includes a host and a fluorescent dopant. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve luminance efficiency, increase brightness, and increase lifetime, as taught by Liao.
Regarding claim 10: Fleetham in view of Liao teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 9, as outlined above.
Liao further teaches that a stacked OLED consists of two or more organic electroluminescent units {pg. 3, [0051]}. Therefore, Liao teaches that an emitting layer can be positioned between the first and second blue emitting material layers.
Liao teaches that blue, green, and red light emitting units can be stacked in an OLED and that several stacks can be used {pg. 5, [0072]}. Therefore, Liao teaches one or more of a red emitting material layer, a yellow-green emitting material layer and a green emitting material layer can be positioned between the first and second blue emitting material layers.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the stacked organic light emitting diode of Fleetham in view of Liao outlined above by positioning an emitting layer between the first and second blue emitting material layers, wherein the emitting layer is one or more of a red emitting material layer, a yellow-green emitting material layer and a green emitting material layer, based on the teaching of Liao. As outlined above, the motivation for doing so would have been to improve luminance efficiency, increase brightness, and increase lifetime, as taught by Liao.
Regarding claim 16: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 15, as outlined above. The modified organic light emitting device of Fleetham further comprises the features of a RGB pixel arrangement {pg. 60, [0176]}.
However, Fleetham does not explicitly teach the organic light emitting device wherein the substrate includes a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and the organic light emitting diode corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions, and wherein the organic light emitting device further comprises a color conversion layer corresponding to the red, green and blue pixel regions.
Liao teaches a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region and the OLED corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Figure 10}.
Additionally, Liao teaches a color conversion layer corresponding to the red, green and blue pixel regions {Figure 10 shows a color conversion layer; pg. 6, [0078]}.
Liao teaches that use of a color conversion layer in a device with stacked blue-emitting organic light emitting material layers improves the efficiency and lifetime of light emitting devices when compared to other devices that do not have stacked blue-emitting material layers {pg. 6, [0077]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified organic light emitting device of Fleetham so that the substrate includes a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and the OLED corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions, and the organic light emitting device further comprises a color conversion layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions, based on the teaching of Liao. The motivation for doing so would have been because the use of a color conversion layer in a device with stacked blue-emitting organic light emitting material layers has improved efficiency and lifetime when compared to other devices that do not have stacked blue-emitting material layers, as taught by Liao.
Regarding claim 17: Fleetham teaches all of the features of claims 1 and 15, as outlined above. The modified organic light emitting device of Fleetham further comprises the features of a RGB pixel arrangement or white plus color filter pixel arrangement {pg. 60, [0176]}.
However, Fleetham does not explicitly teach the organic light emitting device of Fleetham wherein the substrate includes a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and the OLED corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions, and wherein the organic light emitting device further comprises a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions.
Liao teaches a red pixel region, a green pixel region and a blue pixel region, and the organic light emitting diode corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Figure 9; pg. 5, [0075]}.
Additionally, Liao teaches a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Figure 9 shows a layer comprised of the array of color filters 651-653; pg. 5, [0075]}.
Liao teaches that the color filter layer simplifies manufacturing by making it easier to apply the filter after fabricating the OLED device {pg. 5, [0073]}.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified organic light emitting device of Fleetham so that the substrate includes a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, and the OLED corresponds to the red, green, and blue pixel regions, and the organic light emitting device further comprises a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions, based on the teaching of Liao. The motivation for doing so would have been to simplify manufacturing, as taught by Liao.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCES YAU whose telephone number is (571)272-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 08:00-17:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Frances Yau/
Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights