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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. (see MPEP § 606.01).
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
The following title is suggested:
“Display Panel and Display Apparatus Employing Deep-Red and Deep-Green Light-Emitting Materials”
because the claims are directed to a display panel and a display apparatus employing deep-red and deep-green light-emitting materials to improve display color performance. The title is broad enough to encompass the claimed embodiments while avoiding unnecessary limitations relating to specific electrode structures, encapsulation structures, or material compositions.
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.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the phrase "and/or." The phrase "and/or" renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the claim requires:
(1) the first recited limitation only,
(2) the second recited limitation only, or
(3) both the first and second recited limitations.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. Applicant is required to amend the claim to clearly recite the intended claim scope.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites:
"...wherein a chromaticity coordinate Gx of green light emitted by the deep green fluorescent material is in a range of 0.155 to 0.165; and/or the deep green fluorescent material is selected from any one of: coumarins, carbazole derivatives, diaminoanthracene derivatives, and pyrazoloquinoxaline derivatives."
The use of the phrase "and/or" renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires:
(1) only the chromaticity-coordinate limitation,
(2) only the material-selection limitation, or
(3) both limitations.
Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Applicant is required to amend the claim to clearly define the intended scope.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334).
Regarding claim 1, LEVERMORE discloses a display panel (Fig. 18) comprising:
a first electrode layer (610) including a reflective electrode layer, wherein paragraph [0101] discloses that a reflective anode is used in combination with a partially reflective cathode, the reflective anode corresponding to the claimed first electrode layer;
a second electrode layer (650) arranged opposite to the first electrode layer, wherein paragraph [0101] discloses that the partially reflective cathode corresponds to the claimed transflective (semi-transparent) second electrode layer;
a light-emitting layer disposed between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, wherein the light-emitting layer includes a plurality of light-emitting portions including red, green, and blue light-emitting portions (Fig. 18);
wherein a material of each of the plurality of light-emitting portions includes a host material and a light-emitting material, paragraph [0016] disclosing that the organic light-emitting materials used in the invention include fluorescent and phosphorescent organic light-emitting materials;
wherein the plurality of light-emitting portions include a plurality of red light-emitting portions, a plurality of green light-emitting portions, and a plurality of blue light-emitting portions, Figure 18 disclosing a first sub-pixel 1710 comprising a first emissive unit 1810 and a second emissive unit 1820, a second sub-pixel 1720 comprising a first emissive unit 1830 and a second emissive unit 1840, and a third sub-pixel 1730 comprising a first emissive unit 1850 and a second emissive unit 1860;
wherein a light-emitting material of at least one red light-emitting portion of the plurality of red light-emitting portions includes a deep-red phosphorescent material, paragraph [0016] disclosing phosphorescent organic light-emitting materials and identifying bis(2-(3,5-dimethylphenyl)quinoline-C2,N′)(acetylacetonato) iridium(III) (Ir(dmpq)₂(acac)) as an exemplary red phosphorescent organic light-emitting material; paragraph [0121] disclosing that one of the first and second red emissive units emits deeper red light while the other emits lighter red light; paragraph [0153] defining deep-red light; paragraph [0174] disclosing that the first and second red emissive units are realized using the deep-red OLED light-emitting materials described in Table 1; and paragraph [0224] expressly disclosing that the first emissive unit 1810 emits deeper red light in the first sub-pixel 1710;
wherein a peak of a photoluminescence spectrum of the deep-red phosphorescent material is in a range of 630 nm to 650 nm, paragraph [0164] expressly discloses that the deep-red OLED emits deep-red light with a respective emission peak at 642 nm, which falls within the claimed range of 630 nm to 650 nm, as illustrated in Figure 14.
Paragraphs [0016], [0121], [0153], [0164], [0174], and [0224], together with Figures 14 and 18, disclose a display panel in which the first red emissive unit (1810) is a deeper-red emissive unit realized using the deep-red OLED light-emitting materials of the invention. The disclosed organic light-emitting materials include phosphorescent organic light-emitting materials, and the deep-red OLED emits deep-red light having an emission peak at 642 nm. Accordingly, LEVERMORE discloses a display panel including a deep-red phosphorescent material having an emission peak within the claimed range of 630 nm to 650 nm.
Regarding claim 2, LEVERMORE discloses The display panel according to claim 1, LEVERMORE discloses that the deep-red OLED has a CIE 1931 chromaticity coordinate Rx of approximately 0.704, as shown in Figure 12, which is within the claimed range of 0.703 to 0.705. The deep-red OLED is incorporated into the first red emissive unit of the first sub-pixel as described in paragraphs [0121], [0174], and [0224].
Regarding claim 3, LEVERMORE discloses The display panel according to claim 1, LEVERMORE discloses paragraph [0016] expressly discloses that the organic light-emitting material includes phosphorescent organic light-emitting materials and identifies bis(2-(3,5-dimethylphenyl)quinoline-C2,N′)(acetylacetonato) iridium(III) (Ir(dmpq)₂(acac)) as an example of a red organic light-emitting material. Ir(dmpq)₂(acac) is an iridium complex, which falls within the claimed group of iridium complex, platinum complex, zinc complex, lithium complex, and beryllium complex.
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 4-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334).
Regarding claim 4, LEVERMORE discloses The display panel according to claim 1, LEVERMORE further discloses:
a material of at least one green light-emitting portion including a green thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) material and a deep-green fluorescent material, wherein paragraph [0016] discloses fluorescent organic light-emitting materials; paragraph [0121] discloses that one of the first and second green emissive units emits deeper green light while the other emits lighter green light; paragraph [0153] defines deep-green light as having a peak wavelength in the visible spectrum in the range of 500 nm to 535 nm; paragraph [0176] discloses that the first and second green emissive units are realized using the light-green OLED, deep-green OLED, deep-green QLED and/or deep-green PeLED light-emitting materials described in Table 1; and paragraph [0225] discloses the deeper-green emissive unit in the display panel of Figure 18.
LEVERMORE differs from claim 4 only in that paragraph [0165] discloses the deep-green OLED emitting deep-green light having an emission peak of 521 nm, whereas claim 4 recites that the peak of the photoluminescence spectrum of the deep-green fluorescent material is in the range of 500 nm to 520 nm.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select or adjust the emission peak of the disclosed deep-green fluorescent material from 521 nm to a value within the claimed range, such as 520 nm, because LEVERMORE expressly teaches that deep-green light encompasses a broad wavelength range of 500 nm to 535 nm ([0153]). Optimizing or selecting an emission peak within that disclosed range to achieve a desired chromaticity or color performance constitutes routine optimization of a result-effective variable, yielding no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 5, LEVERMORE discloses The display panel according to claim 4, LEVERMORE further discloses that the deep-green OLED has a CIE 1931 chromaticity coordinate Gx within the claimed range, as shown in Figure 12. Paragraphs [0121], [0176], and [0225] disclose that the first green emissive unit of the display panel is a deeper-green emissive unit realized using the deep-green OLED light-emitting materials described in Table 1.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the disclosed deep-green fluorescent material having the disclosed chromaticity coordinate while optimizing the emission peak from 521 nm to a value within the claimed range of 500 nm to 520 nm, as discussed with respect to claim 4. Such optimization merely involves selecting a wavelength within LEVERMORE's disclosed deep-green wavelength range (500 nm to 535 nm) to achieve the desired color characteristics and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, LEVERMORE discloses a display panel including:
a first electrode layer including a reflective electrode layer ([0101]: reflective anode);
a second electrode layer arranged opposite the first electrode layer and including a transflective electrode layer ([0101]: partially reflective cathode);
a light-emitting layer disposed between the first and second electrode layers (Fig. 18);
the light-emitting layer including a plurality of red, green, and blue light-emitting portions;
each light-emitting portion including a host material and a light-emitting material ([0016]); and
at least one green light-emitting portion including a green thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) material and a deep-green fluorescent material, wherein paragraph [0121] discloses a deeper-green emissive unit, paragraph [0153] defines deep-green light as having a peak wavelength of 500 nm to 535 nm, paragraph [0176] discloses that the green emissive units are realized using the deep-green OLED light-emitting materials described in Table 1, and paragraph [0225] discloses the deeper-green emissive unit in the display panel.
LEVERMORE differs from claim 19 only in that paragraph [0165] discloses the deep-green OLED having an emission peak of 521 nm, whereas claim 19 recites that the peak of a photoluminescence spectrum of the deep-green fluorescent material is in the range of 500 nm to 520 nm.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select or optimize the emission peak of the disclosed deep-green fluorescent material to a value within the claimed range, such as 520 nm, because LEVERMORE expressly teaches that deep-green light encompasses the broader wavelength range of 500 nm to 535 nm. The emission wavelength is a recognized result-effective variable affecting chromaticity and color performance, and selecting a wavelength within the disclosed range would have been a matter of routine optimization yielding predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334) in view of Yamazaki (US 20050073247).
Regarding claim 6, LEVERMORE discloses The display panel according to claim 4, But LEVERMORE does not expressly disclose that the deep-green fluorescent material is selected from coumarins, carbazole derivatives, diaminoanthracene derivatives, or pyrazoloquinoxaline derivatives.
However, Yamazaki discloses that green luminescence is obtained by adding a dopant such as a coumarin derivative to the emissive layer, specifically teaching that a coumarin derivative may be added to the second layer 615 as a dopant in order to obtain green luminescence ([0086]). Thus, Yamazaki teaches using a coumarin derivative as a green fluorescent light-emitting material.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the coumarin derivative taught by Yamazaki as the deep-green fluorescent material in the display panel of LEVERMORE because both references are directed to OLED display devices employing organic emissive layers, and Yamazaki teaches that coumarin derivatives are suitable fluorescent dopants for producing green emission. Substituting one known green fluorescent emitting material for another to obtain predictable green emission characteristics would have been a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334) in view of Lin (US 20200303676).
Regarding claim 7, LEVERMORE discloses The display panel according to claim 1, But LEVERMORE does not expressly disclose a covering layer disposed on a side of the second electrode away from the light-emitting layer, or the claimed thicknesses of the second electrode and covering layer.
However, Lin discloses a light-emitting device including a first electrode layer 111, a second electrode layer 112, and a light-emitting layer 113 ([0028]). Lin further discloses a protective layer 130 including an inorganic layer 131 disposed on the side of the second electrode layer away from the light-emitting layer (Fig. 1A). Paragraph [0043] discloses that the inorganic layer may comprise a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer having a thickness of 1000 Å to 1 μm, the thickness being selected to improve the optical performance of the light-emitting device. Paragraph [0044] further discloses that a conductive material associated with the electrode structure may comprise a thin silver film having a thickness of 50 Å to 200 Å, demonstrating that the thickness of conductive electrode structures is selected to achieve desired electrical and optical performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel of LEVERMORE with the covering layer taught by Lin and to optimize the thickness of the second electrode and the covering layer because Lin recognizes these thicknesses as result-effective variables affecting optical performance. Selecting a second electrode thickness of 160 Å to 170 Å, which falls within Lin's disclosed conductive layer thickness range, and a covering layer thickness of 950 Å to 1000 Å, encompassing and immediately adjacent to Lin's disclosed thickness of 1000 Å, would have been a matter of routine optimization to achieve predictable optical performance.
Regarding claim 10, LEVERMORE in view of Lin discloses The display panel according to claim 7, As discussed with respect to claim 7, Lin discloses a light-emitting device including a first electrode layer 111, a second electrode layer 112, and a light-emitting layer 113 ([0028]). Lin further discloses a protective layer 130 disposed on the side of the second electrode layer 112 away from the light-emitting layer 113, the protective layer including an inorganic layer 131, an organic layer 132, and an inorganic layer 133 sequentially stacked (Fig. 1A). Paragraph [0043] discloses that the inorganic layer 131 may comprise an insulating inorganic layer, such as a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer, corresponding to the claimed covering layer.
Lin further discloses that the organic layer 132 may be a color filter layer ([0038]). A color filter layer performs an optical function by selectively transmitting and filtering light and therefore corresponds to the claimed optical control layer. The inorganic layer 133, disposed on the side of the organic layer 132 away from the covering layer 131, corresponds to the claimed first encapsulation layer, which is a single-layer structure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optical control and encapsulation arrangement taught by Lin into the display panel of LEVERMORE because both references are directed to OLED display devices. Lin teaches that the color filter layer provides optical control while the overlying inorganic layer provides environmental protection. Applying this known layered structure to the display panel of LEVERMORE would have predictably improved the optical performance and reliability of the display device.
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334) in view of Lin (US 20200303676), and further in view of Fan (US 20220310969).
Regarding claim 8, LEVERMORE in view of Lin discloses The display panel according to claim 7, But LEVERMORE in view of Lin does not teach a first encapsulation layer disposed on a side of the covering layer away from the second electrode layer, wherein the first encapsulation layer is a multi-layer structure including a first encapsulation sub-layer, a second encapsulation sub-layer, and a third encapsulation sub-layer sequentially arranged away from the covering layer, the refractive index of the covering layer being greater than the refractive index of the first encapsulation sub-layer, the refractive index of the first encapsulation sub-layer being less than the refractive index of the second encapsulation sub-layer, and the refractive index of the second encapsulation sub-layer being greater than the refractive index of the third encapsulation sub-layer, as recited.
However, Fan teaches a packaging structure including a first inorganic packaging layer (310) comprising a first inorganic packaging sublayer (311), a second inorganic packaging sublayer (312), and a third inorganic packaging sublayer (313) sequentially stacked (Fig. 2; [0004], [0027]). Fan further teaches that the refractive index of the second inorganic packaging sublayer (312) is greater than that of the first inorganic packaging sublayer (311) and greater than that of the third inorganic packaging sublayer (313) ([0004], [0027]). In addition, Fan teaches a light extraction layer (400) disposed between the cathode and the first inorganic packaging sublayer, wherein the refractive index of the light extraction layer is greater than the refractive index of the first inorganic packaging sublayer ([0038]-[0040]). Fan explains that these refractive-index relationships suppress the surface plasmon polariton effect, enhance the microcavity effect, improve light extraction efficiency, and increase luminous efficiency.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of LEVERMORE, as modified by Lin, by incorporating the multilayer encapsulation structure and refractive-index relationships taught by Fan in order to improve light extraction efficiency and luminous efficiency, as expressly taught by Fan.
Regarding claim 9, LEVERMORE in view of Lin and Fan discloses The display panel according to claim 8, Fan further teaches that the refractive index of the light extraction layer disposed adjacent the cathode is greater than that of the first inorganic packaging sublayer, that the refractive index of the second inorganic packaging sublayer is greater than that of the first inorganic packaging sublayer, and that the refractive index of the second inorganic packaging sublayer is greater than that of the third inorganic packaging sublayer, thereby improving light extraction efficiency and luminous efficiency ([0038]-[0040]). Fan further teaches that the first inorganic packaging sublayer has a refractive index of 1.0 to 1.6, the second inorganic packaging sublayer has a refractive index of 1.6 to 2.5, and the third inorganic packaging sublayer has a refractive index of 1.0 to 2.2 ([0011]). Fan also teaches representative materials including SiO₂, SiN, and silicon oxynitride, whose refractive indices are selected according to the desired optical performance.
Although Fan does not expressly disclose the specific refractive-index ranges recited for each layer, Fan recognizes that the refractive indices of the optical layers are selected to improve light extraction efficiency and luminous efficiency and are therefore result-effective variables.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select refractive indices for the covering layer and the encapsulation sublayers within the claimed ranges, including selecting a covering layer refractive index of 1.7–1.8, a first encapsulation sublayer refractive index of 1.4–1.52, a second encapsulation sublayer refractive index of 1.7–1.8, and a third encapsulation sublayer refractive index of 1.55–1.65, through routine optimization of the optical properties taught by Fan to achieve predictable improvements in light extraction and luminous efficiency. Accordingly, the claim 9 would have been obvious over LEVERMORE in view of Lin and Fan.
Regarding claim 11, LEVERMORE in view of Lin and Fan discloses The display panel according to claim 8, Fan further teaches that the packaging structure includes an organic packaging layer (320) disposed on a side of the first inorganic packaging layer (310) away from the light-emitting device and a second inorganic packaging layer (330) disposed on a side of the organic packaging layer (320) away from the first inorganic packaging layer (Fig. 2; [0005], [0027]). The organic packaging layer (320) and the second inorganic packaging layer (330) correspond respectively to the claimed second encapsulation layer and third encapsulation layer sequentially disposed on a side of the first encapsulation layer away from the covering layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the additional encapsulation layers taught by Fan in the display panel of LEVERMORE as modified by Lin because Fan teaches that the organic and inorganic packaging layers provide multiple barriers against moisture and oxygen while improving device reliability and service life.
Regarding claim 12, LEVERMORE in view of Lin and Fan discloses The display panel according to claim 11, Fan further teaches that the inorganic packaging sublayers may be independently formed from silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride (SiN), silicon dioxide (SiO₂), Al₂O₃, or ZrO ([0011], [0035]). Fan additionally discloses an embodiment in which the third inorganic packaging sublayer (313) is formed of silicon oxynitride, the second inorganic packaging sublayer (312) is formed of silicon nitride (SiN), and the packaging structure further includes the organic packaging layer (320) ([0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select silicon oxynitride for the first encapsulation layer, an organic material for the second encapsulation layer, and silicon nitride for the third encapsulation layer because Fan expressly teaches these materials as suitable encapsulation materials for OLED packaging structures to provide moisture resistance, oxygen barrier properties, and improved device reliability.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334) in view of Bender et al. (WO 2022178636)
Regarding claim 13, LEVERMORE discloses a display panel comprising:
a first electrode layer including a reflective electrode layer ([0101]: reflective anode);
a second electrode layer arranged opposite to the first electrode layer, wherein the second electrode layer includes a transflective electrode layer ([0101]: partially reflective cathode);
a light-emitting layer disposed between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (Fig. 18);
the light-emitting layer including a plurality of red, green, and blue light-emitting portions;
each light-emitting portion including a host material and a light-emitting material ([0016]);
wherein at least one red light-emitting portion includes a red thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) material and a deep-red fluorescent material ([0121], [0174]); and
the deep-red fluorescent material emits deep-red light having a peak wavelength within the claimed range of 630 nm to 650 nm, for example, about 642 nm ([0164]).
But LEVERMORE does not expressly disclose that the ratio of the mass of the deep-red fluorescent material to the sum of the masses of the host material, the red TADF material, and the deep-red fluorescent material is in the range of 0.4% to 0.6%.
However, Bender discloses a light-emitting composition including a host material, a thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) material, and a fluorescent light-emitting material ([0093]). Bender further teaches that the fluorescent light-emitting material may be present in the composition at a concentration of 0.1% to 5% by mass ([0088]). Additionally, Bender teaches that the concentration of the TADF material is selected to optimize OLED performance, explaining that increasing the TADF concentration improves triplet-to-singlet conversion but may adversely affect charge transport ([0092]). Accordingly, Bender recognizes that the concentrations of the host material, TADF material, and fluorescent material are result-effective variables that are adjusted to achieve a desired balance of emission efficiency, color performance, and charge transport.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration of the fluorescent light-emitting material in the display panel of LEVERMORE within the concentration range taught by Bender, including selecting a concentration within the claimed range of 0.4% to 0.6% by mass, through routine experimentation to obtain the desired balance of emission efficiency, color purity, and charge transport. The claimed concentration range falls squarely within Bender's disclosed fluorescent dopant concentration range of 0.1% to 5% by mass, and Bender expressly teaches that optimization of the emissive component concentrations is a routine design consideration in OLED devices.
Regarding claim 14, LEVERMORE and Bender disclose discloses The display panel according to claim 13, LEVERMORE further discloses a deep-red OLED emitting deep-red light having a peak wavelength of about 642 nm ([0164]) and discloses the chromaticity characteristics of the deep-red emitter (e.g., Fig. 12). The claimed chromaticity coordinate Rx of 0.703 to 0.705 represents optimization of the chromaticity corresponding to the disclosed deep-red emission.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the chromaticity coordinate of the deep-red fluorescent material to achieve the desired color gamut because chromaticity is directly dependent upon the emission spectrum and is a recognized result-effective variable in OLED display design. Selecting an Rx value within the claimed range would have been obtained through routine optimization to achieve predictable color performance.
Regarding claim 16, LEVERMORE and Bender disclose discloses The display panel according to claim 13, LEVERMORE discloses the green emissive unit including a green thermally activated delayed fluorescence material and a deep-green fluorescent material, wherein the deep-green OLED emits light having an emission peak of 521 nm ([0165]), and defines deep-green emission as 500 nm to 535 nm ([0153]).
Bender is relied upon for the optimization of emissive component concentrations as discussed with respect to claim 13.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the emission peak of the deep-green fluorescent material to a value within the claimed range of 500 nm to 520 nm, because LEVERMORE recognizes the emission wavelength as a result-effective variable affecting chromaticity and color performance, and optimization within the disclosed deep-green wavelength range would have been routine.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334) in view of Bender et al. (WO 2022178636), and further in view of Lee (US 20100148662).
Regarding claim 15, LEVERMORE and Bender disclose discloses The display panel according to claim 13, But LEVERMORE and Bender do not expressly disclose that the deep-red fluorescent material is selected from dicyanomethylene-4H-pyran (DCM)-based dopants, DCM derivative dopants, auxiliary dopants, conjugated condensed rings, porphyrin macrocycles, and aromatic acid.
However, Lee discloses that Alq₃ is a widely used host material in organic electroluminescent devices, and further teaches that it is used as a host material for a red-emitting device made of DCM derivatives ([0003]). Thus, Lee expressly teaches the use of DCM derivatives as red fluorescent emitters in OLED devices.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the DCM derivative dopants taught by Lee as the deep-red fluorescent material in the display panel of LEVERMORE because Lee teaches that DCM derivatives are conventional red fluorescent emitters for OLED devices. Substituting one known red fluorescent emitter for another in the OLED display of LEVERMORE would have been a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions to obtain red emission.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334) in view of Bender et al. (WO 2022178636), and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20050073247).
Regarding claim 17, LEVERMORE and Bender disclose discloses The display panel according to claim 16, LEVERMORE further teaches chromaticity characteristics corresponding to the deep-green emitter, making optimization of the claimed Gx coordinate of 0.155 to 0.165 an obvious matter of routine color tuning associated with selecting the emission wavelength. But LEVERMORE and Bender do not expressly disclose the deep green fluorescent material is selected from any of: coumarins, carbazole derivatives, diaminoanthracene derivatives, and pyrazoloquinoxaline derivatives.
However, Yamazaki teaches that green luminescence may be obtained using a coumarin derivative as a fluorescent dopant ([0086]). A coumarin derivative falls within the recited Markush group.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the green fluorescent dopant taught by Yamazaki in the OLED display of LEVERMORE because both references are directed to OLED emissive devices employing conventional fluorescent dopants to achieve predictable green emission characteristics.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEVERMORE et al. (US 20230371334) in view of Yamazaki (US 20050073247).
Regarding claim 20, LEVERMORE discloses The display panel according to claim 19, But LEVERMORE does not expressly disclose that the deep-green fluorescent material is selected from coumarins, carbazole derivatives, diaminoanthracene derivatives, or pyrazoloquinoxaline derivatives.
However, Yamazaki discloses that green luminescence is obtained by adding a dopant such as a coumarin derivative to the emissive layer, thereby teaching a coumarin derivative as a green fluorescent light-emitting material ([0086]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the coumarin derivative taught by Yamazaki as the deep-green fluorescent material in the display panel of LEVERMORE because both references are directed to OLED display devices employing organic emissive layers, and Yamazaki teaches that coumarin derivatives are suitable fluorescent dopants for producing green emission. Substituting one known green fluorescent material for another to obtain predictable green emission characteristics would have been a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 22, LEVERMORE discloses The display panel according to claim 1, But LEVERMORE does not expressly disclose a display apparatus including a driver chip for driving the display panel to display images.
Yamazaki discloses a display apparatus including a driver circuit and a display panel. Paragraph [0127] discloses that Figure 10A illustrates a cross-sectional view of a TFT 1001 used in the driver circuit, a TFT 1002 used in the pixel portion, and a light-emitting element 1003 supplied with current by the TFT of the pixel portion. Paragraph [0128] further describes the TFT 1001 of the driver circuit. Paragraph [0132] discloses that one of the wirings 1015 is connected to an IC chip 1051 through an anisotropic conductive resin 1050, and Figure 10A illustrates the IC chip 1051 connected to the display panel. Thus, Yamazaki teaches a display apparatus including an IC chip 1051 for driving the display panel to display images.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the display panel of LEVERMORE with the driver chip taught by Yamazaki because both references are directed to OLED display devices. Incorporating a known display driver integrated circuit into a known OLED display panel merely combines familiar elements according to their established functions to obtain the predictable result of driving the display panel to display images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10A-3P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights