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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application KR10-2022-0151500 filed in republic of Korea on November 14, 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.
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 1-14 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 claim 1, the claim recites “transmissive layer” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The instant claim and instant specification refer to transmissive electrode. For purpose of examination, the transmissive layer is interpreted as being transmissive electrode.
Regarding claims 2-14, the claims are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 6,
the claim recites “the second electrode” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Paragraph 0067 of instant specification recites “the first electrode 210 can be a transmissive (or semi-transmissive) electrode and the second electrode 230 can be a reflective electrode”. For purpose of examination, the second electrode is interpreted as being the reflective electrode.
the claim calls for a first and second red emitting material layers and that the wherein the first red emitting material layer includes a red delayed fluorescent compound. Claim 13 and the instant specification defines a red delayed fluorescent compound as one of Chemical Formula 11 and specifically compounds TD-1 to TD-7. However, claim 12 and the instant specification also defines the green delayed fluorescent compound as one of Chemical Formula 11 and specifically compounds TD-1 to TD-7. It is unclear whether the “red delayed fluorescent compound” limitation refers to a compound required to emit a portion of the red light or to have a maximum emission wavelength overlapping the red region. For purpose of examination, it is interpreted as emitting a portion of the red light.
Regarding claims 7-8, 10, and 13-14, the claims are rejected as being dependent on claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein each of the first blue emitting material layer and the second blue emitting material layer and each of the first green emitting material layer and the second green emitting material layer are located within a single emitting part”. However, applicant does not define the meaning or composition of a single emitting part. For purpose of examination, a single emitting part is interpreted as a combination of the layers within the transmissive electrode and the reflective electrode.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “wherein each of the first blue emitting material layer and the second blue emitting material layer, each of the first green emitting material layer and the second green emitting material layer, and each of the first red emitting material layer and the second red emitting material layer are located within a single emitting part”. However, applicant does not define the meaning or composition of a single emitting part. For purpose of examination, a single emitting part is interpreted as a combination of the layers within the transmissive electrode and the reflective electrode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0179418 A1) in view of Hong et al. (US 2020/0185633 A1) and Bae et al. (US 2022/0081457 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an organic light emitting device (Fig. 6, 2000, para. 0108) comprising:
a substrate defining a first pixel region (Fig. 6, B, para. 0109) and a second pixel region (Fig. 6, G, para. 0109); and
an organic light emitting diode disposed over the substrate, wherein the organic light emitting diode includes a transmissive electrode (Fig. 6, 530, para. 0061 recites “the second electrode may be referred to as a semi-transmissive electrode”), a reflective electrode (Fig. 6, 510, para. 0060 recites “the first electrode may be a referred to as a reflective electrode”) facing the transmissive electrode and an emissive layer (Fig. 6, see layers 524B – 5255B and 524G to 5255G) disposed between the transmissive electrode and the reflective electrode,
wherein the organic light emitting diode respectively corresponds to each of the first pixel region and the second pixel region (Fig. 6, blue OLED stack is above pixel B and green OLED stack is above pixel G),
wherein the emissive layer comprises a first emissive layer (Fig. 6, first emissive layers 524B and 524G, para. 0112 - 0113) and a second emissive layer (Fig. 6, second emissive layers 5255B and 5255G, para. 0112 - 0113),
wherein the first emissive layer of the organic light emitting diode is disposed in the first pixel region (para. 0113, “a blue light emitting device may be disposed in the blue pixel B”) and includes a first blue emitting material layer (Fig. 6, 524B, para. 0113) including a first blue fluorescent compound (para. 0077 recites that the dopant may be phosphorescent and “examples of the phosphorescent dopant may include bis(3,5-difluoro-2-(2-pyridyl)phenyl-(2-carboxypyridyl)iridium(III) (FlrPic), etc., but are not limited thereto”), and a second blue emitting material layer (Fig. 6, 5255B, para. 0113) disposed between the first blue emitting material layer and the transmissive electrode, and
wherein the second emissive layer of the organic light emitting diode is disposed in the second pixel region (para. 0112, “a green light emitting device may be disposed in green pixel G”)) and includes a first green emitting material layer (Fig. 6, 524G, para. 0112), and a second green emitting material layer (Fig. 6, 5255G, para. 0112) disposed between the first green emitting material layer and the transmissive layer.
Lee does not specifically teach wherein the second blue emitting material layer includes a second blue fluorescent compound and a blue phosphorescent compound. However, Lee teaches that blue emitting material layers may contain fluorescent or phosphorescent dopants and does not limit the dopant materials (para. 0077 and 0123).
Lee teaches that the phosphorescent dopant may be an organometallic dopant, an example is FlrPic, a third-row transition metal complex (para. 0077 and 0123). Bae et al. teaches an organic light-emitting device including an organometallic compound (para. 0002), wherein that organometallic compound may be a third row transition metal (para. 0010). Bae teaches that the organometallic compound is represented by Formula 1 and that an emits blue light (para. 0209). Bae also teaches that the organometallic compound has excellent photochemically stability and phosphorescent luminescent characteristics (para. 0439). Additionally, Bae teaches that organic light-emitting device using the organometallic compound may have improved efficiency and lifespan (para. 0439). Bae also teaches that the organometallic compound of Formula 1 is used in an emission layer that emits blue light (para. 0224) and that the emission layer may further include a fluorescent dopant (para. 0223). Example 8 of Bae teaches a device with a blue phosphorescent compound 1
PNG
media_image1.png
435
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a blue fluorescent compound FD-14
PNG
media_image2.png
365
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Bae teaches that an emission layer with the organometallic compound of Formula 1 in combination with a fluorescent dopant may emit fluorescent light that is generated by the transfer of the triplet excitons of the organometallic compound to the fluorescent dopant (para. 0223). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the emitting layer of Lee to incorporate the organometallic compound as phosphorescent compound and the fluorescent compound of Bae because it would have readily emitted the fluorescent light by producing the required transfer of the triplet excitons of the organometallic compound to the fluorescent dopant and obtain a device with improved efficiency and lifespan as taught by Bae.
The combination of Lee and Bae does not teach wherein the first green emitting material layer includes a first green delayed fluorescent compound or wherein the second green emitting material layer includes a second green delayed fluorescent compound. However, Lee teaches that green emitting material layers may contain at least one dopant and does not limit the dopant materials (para. 0079 and 0122).
Lee utilizes phosphorescent hosts and dopants. Hong teaches an OLED comprising a first and second emitting layer that contains delayed fluorescent dopants and phosphorescent dopants (abstract). Hong teaches that their organic light emitting diodes and devices possess high emitting efficiency, improved color continuity, and relatively wide FWHM provided by delayed fluorescent dopants (para.0051) of Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
437
381
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. OLED D4 (Fig. 8) with an organic material layer 514 that includes a first EML 520 and a second EML 560. The first EML 520 includes a first green delayed fluorescent compound 522 (para. 0163) that may be a compound of Formula 1 (para. 0164) and the second EML 560 includes a second green delayed fluorescent compound 562 (para. 0172) that may be a compound of Formula 1 (para. 0173).
Hong teaches that by combining a delayed fluorescent dopant and a phosphorescent dopant, the resulting device provides high emitting efficiency (para. 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by incorporating the delayed fluorescent compounds of Hong in order to provide the benefit of a device with high emitting efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches wherein the organic light emitting device according to claim 1 further comprises:
a first charge generation layer (Fig. 6, N-type CGL 541 and P-type CGL 542, para. 0114) disposed between the first blue emitting material layer and the second blue emitting material layer; and
a second charge generation layer (Fig. 6, N-type CGL 541 and P-type CGL 542, para. 0114) disposed between the first green emitting material layer and the second green emitting material layer.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches wherein the first blue emitting material layer further includes a first blue host (para. 0077 recites “one or more host materials”) and the second blue emitting material layer further includes a second blue host (para. 0123 recites “one or more host materials”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches wherein the first green emitting material layer further includes a first green host (para. 0079 recites “at least three hosts”) and the second green emitting material layer further includes a second green host (para. 0122 recites “one or more host materials”).
Regarding claim 9, since single emitting part is interpreted as a combination of the layers within the transmissive electrode and the reflective electrode, modified Lee further teaches wherein each of the first blue emitting material layer and the second blue emitting material layer and each of the first green emitting material layer and the second green emitting material layer are located within a single emitting part (See Fig. 6 where layers are all within the transmissive electrode 530 and the reflective electrode 510).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee further teaches wherein each of the first green delayed fluorescent compound and the second green delayed fluorescent compound are compounds of Formula 1 of Hong
PNG
media_image3.png
437
381
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. A specific compound of Formula 1 of Hong is
PNG
media_image4.png
393
374
media_image4.png
Greyscale
which reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 11
PNG
media_image5.png
381
345
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed formula:
f1 and f2 are each 0 thus R61 and R62 do not exist
n is 4
Claims 4, 6-8, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0179418 A1), Hong et al. (US 2020/0185633 A1) and Bae et al. (US 2022/0081457 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2021/0119145 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the organic light emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above in Paragraph 7.
The combination of Lee, Bae, and Hong do not specifically teach wherein the first green emitting material layer further includes a first green fluorescent compound and the second green emitting material layer further includes a second green fluorescent compound.
However, the combination of Lee, Bae, and Hong teaches that the green delayed fluorescent compound is a benzonitrile carbazole as depicted above for claim 1 in Paragraph 18. Seo et al. teaches an organic light emitting diode with excellent emitting properties (para. 0001). Seo teaches that the first and second EMLs 550 and 570 are a green EML and that they may contain a fluorescent compound of Formula 3
PNG
media_image6.png
336
569
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in combination with a delayed fluorescent compound of Formula 1 which is a benzonitrile carbazole
PNG
media_image7.png
439
464
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(para. 0160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the fluorescent compound of Seo, because Seo teaches that a combination of such compound with a benzonitrile carbazole produces an organic light emitting diode with excellent emitting properties.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches wherein,
the substrate further defines a third pixel region (Fig. 6, R, para. 0109);
the organic light emitting diode further corresponds to the third pixel region Fig. 6, red OLED stack is above pixel R);
the emissive layer further comprises a third emissive layer (Fig. 6, first red emissive layer 524R, para. 0111); and
the third emissive layer of the organic light emitting diode is disposed in the third pixel region (para. 0111, “a red-light emitting device may be disposed in the red pixel R”) and includes a first red emitting material layer (Fig. 6, 524R, para. 0111) and a second red emitting material layer (Fig.6, 5255R, para. 0121) disposed between the first red emitting material layer and the reflective electrode and including a red phosphorescent compound (para. 0121 recites “a dopant constituting the second red EML 5255R may include a phosphorescent dopant”).
The combination of Lee, Bae, and Hong does not specifically teach wherein the first red emitting material layer includes a red delayed fluorescent compound in combination with a red fluorescent compound. However, Lee teaches that the red emitting layer may contain a fluorescent or a phosphorescent dopant (para. 0076 and 0121). Lee does not limit the host or dopant materials (para. 0076 and 0121).
Seo et al. teaches an organic light emitting diode with excellent emitting properties (para. 0001). Seo teaches a device that uses a fluorescent compound of Formula 3
PNG
media_image6.png
336
569
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(para. 0083) in combination of a delayed fluorescent compound of Formula 1
PNG
media_image7.png
439
464
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. Seo teaches an EML 240 in the OLED D that includes the compounds of Formula 1 and Formula 3, and the exciton of the compound of Formula 1 is transported into the compound of Formula 3. As a result, the OLED D provides the emission with narrow FWHM and high emitting efficiency (para. 0088).
Seo also discloses that emitting material layer 240 includes a fluorescent compound of Formula 3
PNG
media_image6.png
336
569
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(para. 0083). Also, Seo teaches that a specific fluorescent compound of Formula 3 is compound 2-1
PNG
media_image8.png
588
571
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, which paragraph 0148 of instant application states is a red fluorescent compound.
Seo teaches that emitting material layer 240 includes a first compound that is a delayed fluorescent compound of Formula 1
PNG
media_image7.png
439
464
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(para. 0077). Additionally, Seo teaches that specific delayed fluorescent compound of Formula 1 is compound 1-11
PNG
media_image9.png
521
646
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, which is compound TD-1 in instant specification paragraph 0146 of instant application states that the compound is a red delayed fluorescent compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the red emitting layer of Lee to provide the combination of the red fluorescent dopant and the red delayed fluorescent dopant because it would have resulted in narrowing the FWHM and increase the light emitting efficiency as taught by Seo.
Regarding claim 7, further modified Lee teaches wherein the organic light emitting device according to claim 1 further comprises a third charge generation layer (Fig. 6, N-type CGL 541 and P-type CGL 542, para. 0114) disposed between the first red emitting material layer and the second red emitting material layer.
Regarding claim 8, further modified Lee teaches wherein the first red emitting material layer further includes a first red host (para. 0076 recites “one or more host materials”) and the second red emitting material layer further includes a second red host (para. 0121 recites “one or more host materials”).
Regarding claim 10, since single emitting part is interpreted as a combination of the layers within the transmissive electrode and the reflective electrode, modified Lee further teaches wherein each of the first blue emitting material layer and the second blue emitting material layer, each of the first green emitting material layer and the second green emitting material layer, and each of the first red emitting material layer and the second red emitting material layer are located within a single emitting part (See Fig. 6 where layers are all within the transmissive electrode 530 and the reflective electrode 510).
Regarding claim 13, further modified Lee teaches wherein the red delayed fluorescent compound is compound 1-11 of Seo
PNG
media_image9.png
521
646
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 11
PNG
media_image5.png
381
345
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed formula
f1 and f2 are each 0 thus R61 and R62 do not exist
n is 4
Regarding claim 14, further modified Lee teaches wherein the red fluorescent compound is compound 2-1 of Seo
PNG
media_image8.png
588
571
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 17
PNG
media_image10.png
464
594
media_image10.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed formula
R101, R103, R104, and R106 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
R102 and R105 are each a hydrogen
R107 is a substituted C6 aryl group
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ( US 2017/0179418 A1), Hong et al. (US 2020/0185633 A1) and Bae et al. (US 2022/0081457 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bin et al. (KR20200068505A, relying on WIPO English Translation).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee further teaches:
wherein the second blue fluorescent compound is
PNG
media_image2.png
365
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reads in the claimed Chemical Formula 5
PNG
media_image11.png
440
488
media_image11.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed Formula:
R21 and R22 are each an unsubstituted C12 aryl amino group
b1 and b2 are each 1
b3 to b6 are each 0, thus R23 to R26 do not exist
Modified Lee teaches that the blue phosphorescent compound is
PNG
media_image1.png
435
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which does not specifically read on Chemical Formula 7
PNG
media_image12.png
379
387
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. However, Bae teaches that the phosphorescent compound can be any of Formula 1 and a specific compound of Formula 1 is compound 135
PNG
media_image13.png
412
497
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Lee by substituting compound 1 of Bae with compound 135, because it would have been choosing suitable organometallic of Formula 1 for another, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the blue phosphorescent compound in the second blue emitting layer of the OLED device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Bae. One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1 of Bae having the benefits taught by Bae in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 135
PNG
media_image13.png
412
497
media_image13.png
Greyscale
of Bae reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 7
PNG
media_image12.png
379
387
media_image12.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed formula:
R42 and R43 are each a substituted C6 aryl group
d1 is 0 thus R41 does not exist
d2 and d3 are each 1
R44 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group
The combination of Lee, Bae, and Hong do not specifically teach wherein the first blue fluorescent compound includes an organic compound having the structure of Chemical Formula 1. However, Lee teaches that the first blue fluorescent compound may be a pyren derivative (para. 0077).
Bin teaches an organic light emitting diode capable of emitting blue light with high efficiency and high luminance, and an organic light emitting display device including the same (Page 001, the description of the invention). To achieve this, Bin uses pyrene dopants in the emitting layer.
A specific pyrene dopant disclosed by Bin is compound 2,
PNG
media_image14.png
782
551
media_image14.png
Greyscale
. Compound 2 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image15.png
443
359
media_image15.png
Greyscale
where in the claimed formula R1 to R4 are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bin’s compound 2, because it would have been choosing one suitable pyrene from those taught by Bin. The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the compound 2 pyrene of Bin because it would predictably combine with the blue emitting layer of Lee to act as a suitable first blue fluorescent compound.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights