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 § 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.
Claims 1-11, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tae (KR10-2011-0105285) in view of Kim (KR 10-2020-0096169).
Regarding Claims 1-11, 17-19, Tae teaches an organic electroluminescent device including: an anode; a cathode; and a layer interposed between the anode and
the cathode, the layer including the triazine-based compound represented by
Tae’s Chemical Formula 1. The layer containing the triazine-based compound is
an emission layer between the anode and the cathode, and at least
one layer selected from the group consisting of a hole injection layer, a hole
transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron
transport layer, and an electron injection layer may be further included between
the anode and the cathode. The emission layer also contains an iridium complex (machine trans. paragraphs 62-64).
The office interprets the above as Chemical Formula 1 as been the host and the iridium complex as being the dopant, while an iridium complex is commonly used as a dopant and an emission layer is known to contain both a host and a dopant.
Tae’s Chemical Formula 1is represented by Compound 5 (page 6):
PNG
media_image1.png
326
290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 5 reads on applicants’ Chemical Formula 1, 1-1, and 28 wherein L1-L4 = direct bond; R1-R4 = H; Ar1-Ar4 = phenyl.
Tae fails to teach applicant second compound.
Kim teaches an OLED contain between an a first electrode and a second electrode an emission layer containing a first host and a second host (machine trans. page 297 of 369). The first host can be represented by 3-2 (machine trans. page 7 of 369):
PNG
media_image2.png
334
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The second host is represented by Kim-121(page 121, paragraph 218):
PNG
media_image3.png
148
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim-124 reds on applicants’ chemical Formula 2, 2B-I-2, and 2-9 wherein R5 and R6 are fused to form a phenyl ring; L5 = direct bond; Ar5 = phenyl; R7-R8 = H.
The office notes that Tae’s Compound 5 and Kim’s 3-2 are both triazine based materials.
Kim conducted a name of experiments where the first host and the second host were used in a 1:1 weight ratio. The results were better than the results of using only the first host. It was confirmed that the amount of holes increased as the second host was added, electrons and holes in the red emission layer maintained a more stable
balance, and the efficiency and lifespan of the OLED increased.
The office views the above as showing that Kim’s second host when coupled with a first host which is a triazine derivative shows a synergistic effect which results in increased holes as the second host was used, electrons and holes show more stable balance, and the efficiency and lifespan of the OLED increased. Armed with this knowledge, a skilled artisan would have readily considered the possible of advantages of applying Kim second host to Kim’s emissive layer.
As the performance of Kim’s OLED improved using a host combination over a single host, it would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to have modified the emissive layer of Tae by adding Kim’s second host (Kim-124, reads on applicants’ second compound) with the expectation of an efficiency and lifespan increase in the OLED, absent unexpected results (per claims 1-11, 17-18).
Tae teaches the OLED can be used in a display device (machine trans. paragraph 72) (per claim 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 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 did not show the limitations of the above claims.
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