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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2 and 19 have been amended; claims 21 and 22 have been newly added; and claims 1-22 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
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, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 2007/0278937 A1, hereinafter “Forrest”) in view of LEE et al. (KR 20210067946, however its US equivalent PG PUB 2023/0002420 is used for the rejection, hereinafter “LEE”) and Yoon et al. (US 2021/0119147 A1, hereinafter “Yoon”).
In regards to claim 1, Forrest discloses (See, for example, see annotated Fig. 9 (B) included below) an organic light emitting diode (900), comprising:
an anode (100);
a cathode (200) facing the anode (100);
a first emitting part (300) including a first emitting material layer and positioned between the anode (100) and the cathode (200); and
a second emitting part (400) including a second emitting material layer and positioned between the anode and the first emitting part or between the cathode (200) and the first emitting part (300),
wherein the first emitting material layer includes a first emitting layer including a first fluorescent compound (host/fluorescent dopant) and a second emitting layer including a second fluorescent compound (host/fluorescent dopant/phosphorescent dopant) and positioned between the first emitting layer (300) and the cathode (200),
wherein the second emitting material layer includes a phosphorescent compound (host/fluorescent dopant/phosphorescent dopant),
wherein the first fluorescent compound has a first HOMO energy level and a first LUMO energy level, and wherein the second fluorescent compound has a second HOMO energy level being higher than the first HOMO energy level and a second LUMO energy level being higher than the first LUMO energy level (BCzVBi (HOMO 5.9ev, LUMO 2.8ev), and DCJTB (HOMO 5.5ev, LUMO 2.7ev), See for example, Pars [0009] and [0024]).
However, Forrest is silent about the first and second fluorescent compounds being boron derivative.
LEE while disclosing organic light emitting element teaches first and second fluorescent compounds being boron derivative (See, for example, Pars [0161], [0219], [0291]-[0293], [0340], [0352], and [0354]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Lee into Forrest because this would help improve the low driving voltage, high efficiency, and service life by adjusting the appropriate HOMO energy level and LUMO energy level to adjust the transport degree of holes and/or electrons.
Forrest as modified by Lee further fails to explicitly teach that wherein the first emitting layer contacts the second mitting layer, and the second emitting material layer is spaced apart from each of the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer.
Yoon while disclosing an organic light emitting device teaches (See, for example, Fig. 16) wherein the first emitting layer (1642) contacts the second mitting layer (1644), and the second emitting material layer (1740) is spaced apart from each of the first emitting layer (1642) and the second emitting layer (1644).
In regards to claim 18, Forrest as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 1 and 9(B), Forrest) an organic light emitting display device (See, for example, Par [0060]), comprising: a substrate (110); and the organic light emitting diode of claim 1 (See, for example, Fig. 9(B)) disposed on the substrate (110).
In regards to claim 21, Forrest a modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 16, Yoon) that a charge generation layer (1680) positioned between the first (1620) and second (1720) emitting parts.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of LEE and Yoon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshiyama et al. (US 2003/0091860 A1, hereinafter “Oshiyama”).
In regards to claim 8, Forrest as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 1 except that the phosphorescent compound is one of compounds in Formula 7:
PNG
media_image1.png
308
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Oshiyama while disclosing an organic electroluminescence teaches a light emission layer containing a fluorescent compound and a phosphorescent compound (See, for example, Abstract) and the phosphorescent compound formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
140
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Forrest by Oshiyama because this would help emits light with high emission luminance at reduced power consumption.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of LEE, Yoon and Oshiyama as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of LI et al. (CN 111916573, however, it’s equivalent US PG PUB 2023/0100309 A1 is used for the rejection, hereinafter “LI”).
In regards to claim 9, Forrest as modified all limitations of claim 8 above except that the second emitting material layer further includes a third host, and wherein the third host is one of compounds in Formula 8:
PNG
media_image3.png
470
748
media_image3.png
Greyscale
LI while disclosing an organic electroluminescent device teaches a host compound having the following formula (See, for example, Par [0039]):
PNG
media_image4.png
248
356
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Forrest by LI because this would help obtain a higher efficiency and a longer service life under the condition of a higher luminance.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of LEE and Yoon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee’157 et al. (US 2022/0209157 A1, hereinafter “Lee’157”).
In regards to claim 22, Forest as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 1 except that each of the first and second emitting material layers is green emitting layer.
Lee’157 while disclosing an organic light emitting diode teaches (See, for example, Fig. 3) each of the first and second emitting material layers is green emitting layer (“…the first emission layer 222a and the second emission layer 222b may emit light having the same wavelength…”, See Pars [0123], [0137], and [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Forrest by Lee’157 because this would help increase the illumination and operational lifetime of a monochromatic light-emitting device, since stacking multiple emission layers of the same color allows the device to achieve a target brightness at a lower current density per emission unit to reduce degradation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 19-20 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.
Claims 10-17 are allowed over prior art of record.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach
PNG
media_image5.png
340
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-17 are also allowed as being dependent of the allowed independent base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights