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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on
applications filed in KR on December 27, 2022. It is noted, however, that the
foreign priority date is the effective filing date of the claimed invention if
a. The foreign application supports the claimed invention under 112(a), and
b. The applicant has perfected the right of priority by providing
i. A certified copy of the priority application, and
ii. A translation of the priority application (if not in English).
In the instant case, the applicant has submitted a certified copy of the priority application, but it is not in English, and the examiner cannot determine if it
supports the claimed invention. The effective filing date of the application is considered to be October 17, 2023, which is the actual filing date of instant application 18/381,049.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification contains chemical structures including, but not limited to, the
Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
577
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-24 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.
Claim 1 recites an exciton control layer comprises at least one of a first compound having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 and a second compound having the structure of Chemical Formula 3. It is unclear whether the limitation “at least one” applies to:
the selection between the first or the second compound, thereby requiring one compound of either Chemical Formula 1 or Chemical Formula 3 OR
the selection of the first compound of Chemical Formula 1 and the selection of the second compound of Chemical Formula 3, thereby requiring two compounds, one of Chemical Formula 1 and another of Chemical Formula 3.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner chooses to interpret claim 1 as both (1) and (2).
Claim 1 is also unclear whether the first and second compound, having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 3, necessarily must be found in two separate compounds. Therefore, the confusion arises wherein:
A single compound containing the structural elements of Chemical Formula 1 and Chemical Formula 2 reads on claim 1 OR
Two compounds, one containing the structural element of Chemical Formula 1 and a second containing the structural element of Chemical Formula 2, read on claim 1.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner chooses to interpret claim 1 as both (A) and (B).
Claim 12 recites the same limitation of “exciton control layer comprises at least one of” and suffers from the same lack of clarity as described above.
Claims 1-11 and 13-24 are also rejected as they depend from claims 1 or 12 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they respectively depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (KR 20220081706 A, hereinafter "Han"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
In the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, Han teaches an organic light-emitting device with improved driving voltage, efficiency, and lifetime (abstract) including the specific device Comparative Example 2 (Description pg 9-10) with the following structure:
Glass substrate with a film of ITO;
Charge generating layer on top of the electrode;
Hole transport layer;
Compounds RH and RD forming a red emitting layer;
Compounds YG-PH, YG-NH2, and YGD forming a yellow-green light-emitting layer;
Compounds G-PH, G-NH, and GD forming a green light-emitting layer;
An ETL layer, an electron generation layer, and aluminum anode.
PNG
media_image2.png
776
1249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The compound YG-PH is a compound of instant Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
R1 is substituted C6 aryl group or substituted-“phenylene”;
R2 is substituted C6 aryl group or substituted-“phenylene”;
R2 phenylene is substituted with a connection to R3 phenylene;
R3 is substituted C6 aryl group or substituted-“phenylene”.
R3 phenylene is substituted with a connection to R2 phenylene and additionally phenyl-carbazole.
The compound YG-NH2 is a compound of instant Chemical Formula 3 wherein:
R11 is unsubstituted C6 aryl or “phenylene”;
R12 is substituted C6 aryl or “phenyl-phenylene”;
R13 is Chemical Formula 3A wherein;
a2 is 0;
R15 is substituted C6 hetero aryl group or “indoline”;
A1 is 2.
Therefore, the Comparative Example 2 of Han is an organic light-emitting device that anticipates instant claims 1-2, wherein the yellow-green light-emitting layer containing the compounds YG-PH and YG-NHS anticipates the instant exciton control layer. Note that the specification defines the exciton control layer as (1) capable of controlling or regulating charge transportation or exciton recombination zone, (2) between two emitting material layer emitting different colors, and (3) improves the luminous properties thereof (instant Specification [0036]). The yellow-green light-emitting layer is a layer in which (1) a zone of exciton recombination occurs, (2) is between the red and green light-emitting layers, and (3) improves the luminous properties by being a light emitting layer capable of emitting light.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 20220278293 A1, hereinafter "Huang").
In the pertinent field of organic light-emitting devices, Huang teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an anode, a first organic light emitting layer, an exciton control layer, a second organic light emitting layer, and a cathode that are successively stacked wherein the exciton control layer comprises a first hole transport material and a first electron transport material including the exemplary device (abstract) with the following features:
• anode 100, the hole injection layer 620, the hole transport layer 610, the first red organic light emitting layer 220, the first green organic light emitting layer 210, the exciton control layer 300, the second organic light emitting layer 400, the electron transport layer 630, the electron injection layer 640, and the cathode 500 that are stacked in sequence (¶ [0089], Figure 7);
• a material of the exciton control layer 300 is m-MTDATA doped with 5 % by weight of 3TPYMB (¶ [0093]).
PNG
media_image3.png
600
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
m-MTDATA
m-MTDATA is a compound of instant Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
R1 is substituted C6 aryl group or substituted-“phenylene”;
R2 is substituted C6 aryl group or substituted-“phenylene”;
R3 is substituted C6 aryl group or substituted-“phenylene”.
Therefore, the exemplary device of Huang anticipates instant claim 1 wherein the compound m-MTDATA anticipates the “at least one” of a first compound having the following structure of Chemical Formula 1.
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses the structure of the exemplary device as Fig. 7 (pg 5) including the following layers: anode, hole injection layer, hole transport layer, first red emitting layer, first green emitting layer, exciton control layer, second organic emitting layer, electron transport layer, electron injection layer, and cathode in that order, shown below (¶ [0089] – [0093]).
PNG
media_image4.png
883
1415
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the exemplary device of Huang anticipates claim 8 wherein (1) the emissive layer 400 further comprises an electron transport layer 630 disposed between the first electrode 500 and (2) the emitting material layer 200 and a hole transport layer 610 disposed between the emitting material layer and the second electrode 100.
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 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20220278293 A1, hereinafter "Huang") applied to claims 1 and 8 as described above.
Huang teaches the exemplary device containing the exciton control layer comprising the at least one of a first compound having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 as described above, that reads on instant claims 1. The exemplary device teaches that first and second compounds in the exciton control layer is doped at 5% by weight (¶ [0093]); however, Huang does not necessarily limit the composition to that ratio. Huang teaches that the first and second doping material may have a mass proportion of 0.1%-50% (¶ [0019], claim 6), which reads on the weight ratio of between about 7:3 and about 3:7 in instant claim 7. This weight ratio range substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 7. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Huang, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 21, Huang teaches a display panel device, wherein the organic light-emitting device of Huang may be used as a white sub-pixel, which reads on the display device comprising a display panel configured to display an image and including a plurality of pixels of instant claim 21.
Claims 2-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20220278293 A1, hereinafter "Huang") applied to claims 1, 7-8, and 21 as described above in view of Cha et al. (KR 20160111778 A, hereinafter "Cha"). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
Huang teaches the exemplary device containing the exciton control layer comprising the at least one of a first compound having the structure of Chemical Formula 1 as described above, that reads on instant claims 1 and 7. Huang teaches the exciton control layer contains a second compound; however, Huang is silent on the second compound having the following structure of Chemical Formula 3. Huang does not necessarily limit the second compound in the exciton layer to 3TPYMB: Huang defines the exciton control layer to contain a compound of an electron transport material, and one or more of the multiple types of electron transport materials may be used as the first electron transport material to be applied to the exciton control layer (¶ [0066]).
In the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, Cha teaches an organic light-emitting device with a green emissive layer, a red emissive layer, and an exciton barrier layer containing compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1, shown below, including the specific compound 1-7 (Description pg 3-4, 14).
PNG
media_image5.png
1658
2125
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1510
1185
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 1
Compound 1-7
Cha teaches that an organic light-emitting device containing a compound of Chemical Formula 1 in the exciton barrier layer allow excitons to be trapped within the emissive layer to prevent luminescent leakage, thereby enabling the implementation of organic field light-emitting devices with excellent luminous efficiency (Description pg 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the compound 3TPYMB for the compound 1-7 of Cha in the exciton control layer of the exemplary light-emitting device of Huang, based on the teachings of Cha. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with excellent luminous efficiency, as taught by Cha (Description pg 4).
The resulting Modified Exemplary Device of Huang and Cha including the compound 1-7 in the exciton control layer reads on claims 2 and 5, wherein the compound 1-7 is the same as instant compound 1-1.
Regarding claim 6, Cha teaches that a compound represented by Formula 2, including the compound 2-36, both shown below, directly connects the carbazole skeleton, increasing molecular overlap, resulting in sufficient hole transport characteristics (Description pg 28). Cha teaches that an organic light-emitting device containing a compound of Formula 2 exhibit characteristics of low voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan (Description pg 28).
PNG
media_image7.png
1189
1614
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
1266
1386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 2
Compound 2-36
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the compound m-MTDATA for the compound 2-36 of Cha in the exciton control layer of the Modified Exemplary Device of Huang and Cha, based on the teachings of Cha. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with low voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan, as taught by Cha (Description pg 28).
The resulting Modified Exemplary Device II of Huang and Cha that contains the compound 1-17 and 2-36 in the exciton control layer reads on instant claim 6 because the compound 2-36 is the same as the instant compound 2-1.
Regarding claims 3-4, Huang and Cha teach the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the OLED wherein a difference between the HOMO of the first compound and a second compound is equal to or less than 0.2 eV in claim 3 or 0.15 eV in claim 4. It is reasonable to presume that the difference between the HOMO of the first compound and a second compound is equal to or less than 0.15 eV is inherent to the Modified Exemplary Device II of Huang and Cha. Support for said presumption is found in that Modified Exemplary Device II of Huang and Cha that contains the compound 1-17 and 2-36, which are the same structure as the instant Example 1 with the Compound 1-1 (HOMO: -5.62 eV) and Compound 2-1 (HOMO: -5.75 eV) respectively (instant Specification ¶ [0182]). Therefore, Modified Exemplary Device II of Huang and Cha including the compounds 1-7 and 2-36 are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20220278293 A1, hereinafter "Huang") and Cha et al. (KR 20160111778 A, hereinafter "Cha") applied to claims 1-8 and 21 as described above in view of Jung et al. (US 20170062750 A1).
Huang and Cha teaches the Modified Exemplary Device II that reads on claims 1-8 as described above. Huang teaches that a thin exciton control layer disposed between the first and second emitting parts may not control exciton generation positions (¶ [0055]). Huang and Cha are silent on a first charge generation layer disposed between the first emitting part and the second emitting.
In the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, Jung teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first emission part and a second emission part (abstract), and that a charge generation layer may be provided between the first emission part and the second emission part (¶ [0085] – [0086]). Jung teaches the emissive layers may emit green and red light (¶ [0083]). Jung teaches the organic light-emitting device of Jung enhances efficiency and reduces driving voltage (¶ [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the charge generation layer of Jung in the Modified Exemplary Device II of Huang and Cha, based on the teachings of Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with enhanced efficiency and reduced driving voltage as taught by Jung (¶ [0012]).
The resulting Modified Exemplary Device III of Huang, Cha, and Jung that includes a first emitting layer 200, a second organic emitting layer 400, an exciton control layer disposed between 200 and 400, and a charge generation layer of Jung disposed between 200 and 400 reads on instant claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the first emitting layer 200 and the exciton control layer 300 of the Modified Exemplary Device III of Huang, Cha, and Jung reads on the instant second emitting part comprising the red emitting material layer, the green emitting material layer, and the exciton control layer.
Regarding claim 11, Jung teaches that a second charge generation layer may be further provided between the second emission part and the third emission part to adjust a balance of electrical charges between the second emission part and the third emission part (¶ [0093] – [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the second charge generation layer of Jung between the first green emitting layer 210 and the first red emitting layer 220 in the Modified Exemplary Device III of Huang, Cha, and Jung, based on the teachings of Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with enhanced efficiency and reduced driving voltage as taught by Jung (¶ [0012]).
The resulting Modified Exemplary Device IV of Huang, Cha, and Jung that includes a second charge generation layer between the first green emitting layer 210 and the first red emitting layer 220 reads on the instant emissive layer comprising a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode comprising a third emitting material layer and a second charge generation layer disposed between the second emitting part and the third emitting part of instant claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches that the second organic light emitting layer 400 may contain a blue fluorescent doping material (¶ [0070]). Huang teaches in that exciton control layer may be disposed between the green light emitting layer and the red organic light emitting layer (¶ [0086] – [0089]). Huang teaches the organic light-emitting device of Huang achieves a good white balance, high current efficiency, high light emitting efficiency, and high overall brightness (¶ [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the exciton control layer of Huang between the first red emitting layer 220 and the first green emitting layer 210 in the Modified Exemplary Device IV of Huang, Cha, and Jung, based on the teachings of Huang. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with achieves a good white balance, high current efficiency, high light emitting efficiency, and high overall brightness, as taught by Huang (¶ [0096]).
The resulting Modified Exemplary Device V of Huang, Cha, and Jung has a structure of anode 100, hole injection layer 620, hole transport layer 610, first light emitting layer 200 containing the red and green emitting layers, first red emitting layer 220, a second charge generation layer, exciton control layer, first green emitting layer 210, exciton control layer 300, a first charge generation layer, second organic emitting layer 400 emitting blue light, electron transport layer 630, electron injection layer 640, and cathode 500. The exciton control layers contain the compound 1-7 and 2-36 of Huang as described above. Therefore, the Modified Exemplary Device V reads on instant claims 12-13, 19-20, and 22-23.
Regarding claims 14-17 exciton control layers contain the compound 1-7 and 2-36 of Huang, as described above, in the Modified Exemplary Device V of Huang, Cha, and Jung, which is the same as instant Compounds 1-1 (HOMO: -5.62 eV) and 2-1 (HOMO: -5.75 eV).
Regarding claim 18, Huang teaches the first and second doping material in the exciton control layer may have a mass proportion of 0.1%-50% as described above, which reads on the weight ratio of between about 7:3 and about 3:7 in instant claim 18. This weight ratio range substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 18. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Huang, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Furthermore, as to the ranges recited in the claims, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 24, Huang teaches a display panel device, wherein the organic light-emitting device of Huang may be used as a white sub-pixel. Therefore, Modified Exemplary Device V of Huang, Cha, and Jung used in the display panel of Huang reads on the display device comprising a display panel configured to display an image and including a plurality of pixels of instant claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCAS Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Fridays 7:45 am to 12:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 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 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.
/L.Q.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights