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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 22, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on January 22, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 6, 9 and 19 have been canceled previously.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 8, 10 – 18 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on February 5, 2025 and December 16, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 22, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 5, 7, 8, and 10 – 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Li, Duan and Jung as set forth in the office action filed November 25, 2024.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 22, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 16 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Li, Duan, and Jung and further in view of Sasada as set forth in the office action filed November 25, 2024.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 22, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Li, Duan, and Jung and further in view of Park as set forth in the office action filed November 25, 2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 5, 7, 8, 10 – 18 and 20 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 5, 7, 8, and 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US20150318510A1) in view of Li (US20160285015A1), Duan (US20200203652A1), Jung (US20160141512A1) and Li (US20200266375A1).
As per claims 1 – 3, 7, 8 and 10 - 15, Ito teaches:
An organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode; and a first layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, the first layer comprising a second layer, a region between the second layer and the second electrode, a third layer between the second layer and the region, and a fourth layer between the third layer and the region, the region is an electron transport region, wherein the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer ([0006]: “A typical organic light-emitting device has a structure including a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode that are sequentially stacked on a substrate.” The combination of the hole transport region, the emission layer and the electron transport region read on the claimed first layer, which includes the electron transporting region. The second layer is interpreted as comprising the organic light emitting layer. The third layer, the fourth layer and the region are interpreted as reading on sub-layers in the electron transporting region. As the layers of the electron transporting region transport electrons, at least one of the layers in the electron transporting region can be interpreted as the claimed “electron transport layer.”)
The second layer comprises a first compound, a second compound and a third compound wherein the first compound, the second compound and the third compound are different from each other (Ito teaches a mixed organic layer including two different compounds (Abstract). Ito teaches that the two different compounds include a hole-transporting compound and an electron-transporting compound. The hole-transporting compound is interpreted as reading on the claimed first compound and the electron-transporting compound is interpreted as reading on the claimed second compound. Ito teaches that the EML may be a phosphorescent EML and may include a metal complex as a dopant ([0030]). This dopant is interpreted as reading on the claimed third compound.)
The first compound is a hole transport host compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
243
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ito teaches the following compound as one of the compounds in the mixed organic layer
PNG
media_image2.png
182
207
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0035]), which is the same as compound 1-1 in claim 18. The compound reads on Formula 1 wherein R11 to R18 are all hydrogen; X11 is N(R19); R19 is –(L11)a11-A11; L11 is a π electron-depleted nitrogen-free cyclic group, A11 is a π electron-depleted nitrogen-free cyclic group substituted with two π electron-depleted nitrogen-free cyclic groups, namely a phenyl group substituted with two phenyl groups as required by claim 7. The compound is represented by Formula 1-1 in claim 8.)
The second compound is an electron transport host compound or a bipolar host compound of Formula 2-2
PNG
media_image3.png
207
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Ito teaches the following compound as one of the compounds in the mixed organic layer
PNG
media_image4.png
146
218
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0035]), which is the same as compound 2-10 in claim 18. The compound contains an electron withdrawing group (the triazine group) and reads on Formula 2-2 of Claim 10, wherein a24 and a25 are 0 so that the L group do not exist; X24 to X26 is N; Ar24 and Ar25 are C6 aryl groups, L26 is a C6 arylene group, a26 is 1 and Ar26 is a C12 heteroaryl group.)
Ito teaches that the OLED may contain an electron transport region with an electron transport layer, electron injection layer and/or a hole blocking layer ([0198 – 0201]). Ito does not specifically teach:
The third layer comprises a fifth compound and the fourth layer comprises a sixth compound, wherein the fifth and six compound are different from each other and the fifth and sixth compound are a compound of Formula 10
PNG
media_image5.png
298
319
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Duan teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Duan further teaches examples of electron transporting layer compounds, including triazine compounds such as ET-13
PNG
media_image6.png
153
245
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0069]) which reads on the claimed Formula wherein L101 to L103 are all an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, a101 to a103 is 1 and R101 to R103 are all a C6 aryl group and ET-9
PNG
media_image7.png
201
242
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein L101 to L102 are both an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group, a101 and a102 is 1 and a103 is 0 and R101 and R102 are both a C6 aryl group and R103 is a C13 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 select a compound of Formula 10, such as compound ET-13 and a second, different compound of Formula 10, such as compound ET-9 as materials in separate layers of the electron transport region in the device of Ito (reading on the claimed fifth and sixth compounds in the claimed third and fourth layers) because Duan teaches that the compounds are known as being predictably suitable for layers in the electron transport region ([0069]). 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), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Furthermore, while Duan does not teach selecting a compound reading on claimed fifth compound in the electron transporting region to have a difference in LUMO level less than or equal to 0.2 eV as compared to the emission layer as required by Condition 1 of claim 1, Jung teaches that small differences in LUMO levels between the emission layer and the electron transport region help improve a charge balance between the electron transport and the hole transport and thus, may help emission efficiency and increase lifespan ([0183]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a particular triazine compound of Duan to minimize the difference between the LUMO levels in the emission layer and the electron transporting region to less than or equal to 0.2 as required by Condition 1 of the claim, motivated by the desire to predictably improve a charge balance between the electron transport and the hole transport to help emission efficiency and increase lifespan as taught by Jung ([0183]).
Additionally, while Duan does not specifically teach providing the fifth and sixth compounds in a particular layer arrangement so that Condition 3-1
PNG
media_image8.png
30
210
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claim 1 and Condition 3-2
PNG
media_image9.png
30
194
media_image9.png
Greyscale
of claim 3 are met, Li teaches using multiple sub-layers of an electron transporting layer, such as the hole blocking layer, wherein the LUMO energy level decreases sequentially (Abstract). Li shows this relationship in a representative band diagram in Fig. 6
PNG
media_image10.png
576
640
media_image10.png
Greyscale
as described in [0071]. 13 is the light emitting layer and layers 141, 142, and 143 are sublayers of the hole blocking layer. As shown in the figure, the general trend is a sequential decrease of the LUMO levels of all the electron transport regions. Because the values of the LUMO are negative, a decrease in LUMO levels is actually a higher negative number, meaning that the absolute value of the LUMO values actually increases towards the cathode. The same trend and analysis can be seen for the HOMO levels. Li teaches that by providing this energetic relationship for the LUMO HOMO values, it becomes increasingly difficult to transport holes from the light-emitting layer to the hole blocking layer, allowing for more holes to be confined in the light emitting layer while facilitating the transport of electrons to the light emitting layer and improving device efficiency ([0043] & [0057]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to measure the HOMO and LUMO values of the compounds of Duan and to select the appropriate layers of the electron transport region for each of the compounds so that claimed condition 3-1 in claim 1 and claimed condition 3-2 in claim 3 are met, motivated by the desire to predictably preventing hole transport from the light-emitting layer while facilitating electron transport to the light-emitting layer, resulting in higher device efficiency as taught by Li ([0043] & [0057]).
Ito teaches that the EML may be a phosphorescent EML and may include a metal complex as a dopant ([0030]). Ito does not specifically teach a third compound having the claimed energy levels.
Li teaches metal complexes useful as phosphorescent emitters (Abstract). Li teaches that these compositions can provide improved efficiency and/or operational lifetimes in lighting devices ([0128]). An example of a compound taught by Li is
PNG
media_image11.png
166
241
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in [0120]. This compound reads on Formula 3C of claim 11 and Formula 3-2 of claim 12 wherein M31 is Platinum; n32 is 0 so that L32 does not exist; A31 is a C3 heterocyclic group, A32 is a C6 carbocyclic group, A33 is a C12 heterocyclic group, A34 is a C5 heterocyclic group; T31 and T33 are a single bond, T32 is -O-; k31 to k33 are 1; Y31 to Y34 are all single bonds; R31 is a methyl group and b31 is 2; R32 to R34 are all hydrogens. This compound is the same compound as compound 3-13 in claim 18. As claims 13 – 15 further define variables in Formula 4-1 to 4-3 but do not require that the third compound be selected from Formula 4-1 to 4-3, Li also meets the limitations of the claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select a compound such as PtON1 as the particular dopant material of Ito because Ito teaches phosphorescent platinum compounds are useful dopants ([0030]) and Li teaches that PtON1 can provide improved efficiency and/or operational lifetimes in lighting devices ([0128]).
Regarding the remaining energy level limitations in claims 1 – 3, the prior art combination is silent with respect to the energy level relationships claimed. Since the prior art combination teaches the same compounds as taught by the claimed Formulas, the energy level relationships are presumed to flow naturally from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
As per claim 4, Ito teaches:
Wherein the first layer comprises an organic layer including a hole transport region between the first electrode and the second layer comprises an emission layer ([0006]: “A typical organic light-emitting device has a structure including a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode that are sequentially stacked on a substrate.” The combination of the hole transport region, the emission layer and the electron transport region read on the claimed first layer, which includes the hole transport region. The second layer is interpreted as comprising the organic light emitting layer.)
The hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer or any combination thereof ([0076]: The hole transport region may include at least one selected from an HIL, an HTL, a buffer layer, and a EBL.”)
Wherein the region comprises an electron transport region ([0006]: “A typical organic light-emitting device has a structure including a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode that are sequentially stacked on a substrate.” The region is interpreted as reading on a sub-layer in the electron transporting region.)
As per claim 5, Ito teaches:
Wherein the hole transport region is in direct contact with the emission layer ([0006]: “A typical organic light-emitting device has a structure including a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode that are sequentially stacked on a substrate.” As the hole transport region is taught to be directly below the organic light emitting layer, it is interpreted as being in direct contact with the emission layer as claimed.)
The third compound is present at an interface between the hole transport layer and the emission layer ([0006]: “A typical organic light-emitting device has a structure including a first electrode, a hole transport region, an emission layer, an electron transport region, and a second electrode that are sequentially stacked on a substrate.” As the third compound is taught to be in the emission layer, and the emission layer is taught to be directly on top of the hole transport layer, it is reasonable to presume that the third compound is present at an interface between the hole transport layer and the emission layer as claimed.)
Claims 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US20150318510A1) in view of Li (US20160285015A1), Duan (US20200203652A1), Jung (US20160141512A1) and Li (US20200266375A1) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7, 8, and 10 – 15 above, and further in view of Sasada (US20220190258A1)
As per claims 16 and 17, the prior art combination does not teach:
Wherein the second layer further comprises a fourth compound of Formula 5(1)
PNG
media_image12.png
311
458
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Wherein the third compound is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant or a phosphorescent dopant
The fourth compound is a fluorescent dopant
Sasada teaches an organic light emitting layer for a light emitting device comprising a thermally activated delayed fluorescent compound and a compound having a condensed hetero ring skeleton containing a boron atom ([0013]). The emission layer may also contain two or more host materials ([0225]). The specific combination of a thermally activated delayed fluorescent compound and the condensed hetero ring skeleton containing a boron atom provides a device with high efficiency ([0007]). Example 10 teaches a particular combination of compound B1 and T10
PNG
media_image13.png
164
318
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
310
325
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, which is the same as compound 4-7 and compound 3-1 in claim 18. Compound B1 reads on the claimed formula wherein m51 is 0 so that A51 and A52 are not linked to each other, X52 and X53 are both N(R55), Y51 is B; A51 to A53 are a C6 carbocyclic group; R51 – R53 are hydrogen and R55 are both a C6 aryl group; a51 to a53 are an integer of 4. Compound T10 is a thermally activated delayed fluorescence dopant as required by claim 17. Similarly, Sasada teaches that the boron containing compound is preferably a thermally activated delayed fluorescent compound ([0162]). Additionally, the compound B1 has the same structure as required in claim 16, therefore the property of fluorescence is considered to be inherent to the compound (absent evidence otherwise). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute dopant of the prior art combination for the specific combination of thermally activated delayed fluorescent compound and a compound having a condensed hetero ring skeleton containing a boron atom as the claimed third and fourth compounds in the light emitting layer of the prior art combination device motivated by the desire to predictably produce a device with high device efficiency as taught by Sasada ([0007]).
As per claim 18, as shown above, the prior art combination teaches a device wherein the first compound is a compound of Group I, namely compound 1-19, the second compound is compound of Group II, namely compound 2-10, the third compound is a compound of Group III-1, namely compound 3-1; the fourth compound is a compound of Group IV, namely compound 4-7.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US20150318510A1) in view of Li (US20160285015A1), Duan (US20200203652A1), Jung (US20160141512A1) and Li (US20200266375A1) as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7, 8, and 10 – 15 above, and further in view of Park (US20040085014).
As per claim 20, the prior art combination teaches:
An apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode and the organic light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is in electrical connection with one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor (Ito, [0234]: “When the organic light-emitting device is included in an active matrix organic light-emitting display apparatus, the first electrode located on the side of the substrate is a pixel electrode and may be electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin film transistor.”)
Ito does not teach:
The thin-film transistor comprises an activation layer
Park teaches organic electroluminescent elements (Abstract), which is similar to the device of the prior art combination. Park teaches that the EL element is part of a transistor and that the transistor comprises an activation layer ([0022]).
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 OLED of the prior art combination in a thin-film transistor with the layers and in the arrangement claimed, because the prior art combination teaches that the OLED may be part of a thin-film transistor and Park establishes that the claimed arrangement is a known arrangement for thin-film transistors with OLEDs.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789