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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under Song et al (US 20140124766 A1) and Ohsawa et al (US 20180269418 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Song et al (US 20140124766 A1) in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1).
Double Patenting
There is currently no ODP rejection over 16987332 because the copending claims do not require that the first emission layer comprises a greater amount of the hole transport host than the electron transport host and the second emission layer comprises a greater amount of the electron transport host than the hole transport host, as required by instant claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 20140124766 A1) in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1).
Regarding the new limitations in the claim amendment of 08/20/2025: Song discloses a hole injection layer (HIL) 112 in direct contact with the first electrode, a second Hole Transport Layer (HTL) 124b in directed contact with the first emission layer 126a (so HTL 124b reads on an Electron Blocking Layer (EBL), and between HIL 112 and HTL 124b is another HTL 124a that reads on the claimed Hole Transport Layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Song discloses an OLED with a first and second electrodes facing each other on a substrate, an emission layer comprising first emission mixed layer and a second emission mixed layer [abstract];
Wherein the first emission mixed layer comprises a first hole type host, a phosphorescent dopant, and a second electron type host [0012, 0016, Fig 6] and the content of the first hole-type host may be higher than the content of the second electron-type host in the first emission mixed layer [0017];
Wherein the second emission mixed layer comprises a first electron type host, a phosphorescent dopant, and a second hole type host [0012, 0016, Fig 6] and the content of the first electron-type host may be higher than the content of the second hole-type host in the second emission mixed layer [0017];
The OLED also includes a hole transport layer formed between the first electrode and the first emission mixed layer [0012, Fig 6],
And the content of the hole type host-_h gradually increases with decreasing distance to the hole transport layer and the content of the electron-type host host_e gradually increases with decreasing distance to the electron transport layer [0076, 0095].
The two electron type hosts may be the same or different materials [0074] and the two hole type hosts may be the same or different materials [0075]. The first and second phosphorescent dopants may be the same material (i.e. the emission layers emit the same color) [0022] and may include blue emission [0049, 0099], and blue light has a wavelength of about 400 to 500 nm. The emission layers may also include fluorescent dopants [0049]
The organic light emitting display device may include three or more emission mixed layers. In this case, the content of the hole-type host host_h gradually increases with decreasing distance to the hole transport layer 124b, and the content of the electron-type host host_e gradually increases with decreasing distance to the electron transport layer 128 [0095].
The OLED includes the hole transport layer between the first electrode (anode) and the first emission mixed layer and an electron transport layer between the second electrode (cathode) and the second emission mixed layer [0012].
Regarding claim 18, the Electron transport layer may be made of the same material of the electron type host _e [0052] and so reads on the claimed hole blocking layer, and the electron transporting material includes preferably includes TAZ (3-phenyl-4-(1'-naphthyl)-5-phenyl-1,2,4-triazole) [0052] in which the triazole is a π-depleted nitrogen containing ring.
Song does not disclose the phosphorescent dopants as the claimed metal carbene dopants of formula 4.
Molt discloses metal-carbene complexes comprising a central atom selected from iridium and platinum that has the structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
156
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein m is an integer of 1, 2 or 3 [claim 1], m may be zero, and L may also be a carbene ring containing ligand:
PNG
media_image3.png
148
104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0049]. The emitters may emit blue as well as other colors [0009]. Molt teaches that the platinum complexes may be used as an emitter, matrix material, charge transport material, especially hole transport material or charge blocker in OLEDs, and have a high quantum yield and a high stability in diodes [0009].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed formula 4 dopants as the phosphorescent dopants of Song because Molt teaches that the platinum complexes may be used as an emitter, matrix material, charge transport material, especially hole transport material or charge blocker in OLEDs, and have a high quantum yield and a high stability in diodes.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al (US 20180269418 A1) in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1).
Regarding the limitations added in the amended claims of 08/20/2025: Ohsawa discloses that the light emitting layer may also include a carrier-blocking layer [0124], i.e. Electron Blocking Layers (EBLs and Hole Blocking Layers (HBLs). These layers are placed directly in contact with the light emitting layers, and Ohsawa carrier-blocking layer.
Examiner holds the opinion that the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the EBL would directly contact the light emitting layer on the HTL side of the light emitting layers (and that the HBL would directly contact the light emitting layer on the ETL side of the light emitting layers), and therefore reads on the claims. Alternatively, the rearrangement of parts of a device are considered obvious in the absence of secondary considerations. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding the limitations added in the amended claims of 02/21/2025: Ohsawa also discloses that the hole transport layer may be disposed between the first electrode and the second light emitting layer 113c-1, and the second light emitting layer 113c-1 (which reads on the claimed first emission layer) directly contacts the hole transport layer [Light emitting device 8, Table 7, 0312].
Ohsawa discloses an OLED comprising an anode and a cathode, and a second light emitting layer 113c comprising a first organic compound and a second organic compound that form an exciplex [claims 1 and 10] and the first organic compound is hole transporting material [claims 2-3 and 5, 0109, 0116, 0154] and the second compound is an electron transporting material [claims 2, 4, 6, 0109, 0116, 0154], and wherein the second light emitting layer can have a first phosphorescent (emitting) layer 113c-1 and a second phosphorescent (emitting) layer 113c-2 [0343].
A specific example [Light emitting device 9, 0336, Table 9] includes the second light emitting layer 113c having a double layer structure comprising the two layers (wherein the layers in the Table 9 are footnoted as ** and ***):
PNG
media_image4.png
66
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The layer 113c-1** having an amount of hole transporting host (PCBBiF) greater than the amount of electron transporting host (2mDBTBPDBq-II) (so layer 113c-1** reads on the claimed first emission layer) and the layer 113c-2*** having an amount of electron transporting host greater than the amount of hole transporting host (and layer 113c-2*** reads on the claimed second emission layer), and the amount of electron transporting host (2mDBTBPDBq-II) in the second emission layer 113c-2*** is greater than the amount of electron transporting host (2mDBTBPDBq-II) of the first emission layer 113c-1**.
PCBBiF is disclosed as a hole transporting compound [0152, 0311] and 2mDBTBPDBq-II is disclosed as an electron transporting compound [0151].
Regarding claim 2, the structure of PCBBiF is
PNG
media_image5.png
282
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And reads on the claimed Formula 1, and the electron transporting compound may alternatively include compounds like 4,6-bis[3-(phenanthren-9-yl)phenyl]pyrimidine (abbreviation: 4,6mPnP2Pm), or 4,6-bis[3-(4-dibenzothienyl)phenyl]pyrimidine (abbreviation: 4,6mDBTP2Pm-II) [0151] that read on the claimed Formula 2.
The phosphorescent emitter may emit blue phosphorescence and have an emission peak at 440 nm to 520 nm [0143].
The second light emitting layer 113c can include a phosphorescent substance and a TADF (delayed fluorescent) material can be used as the substance that can convert triplet excitation energy into luminescence [0142].
Regarding claim 15-16, in the example the first electrode is an anode [0324] and layers of the LED include in order the anode, a hole transport layer, the aforementioned second emission layers 113c-1 and 113c-2, an electron transport layer and a cathode [Table 9, 0333].
Regarding claim 17, the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer that has a p-dopant Molybdenum oxide [0327, Table 9] which Applicant’s specification indicates is a p-dopant may have a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of about −3.5 eV or less [see 0133-0136 of Applicant’s Specification as filed].
Regarding claim 18, the Electron transport region includes an electron transport layer consisting of (2mDBTBPDBq-II), i.e. the second electron transport host [Table 9, 0332] and so reads on the claimed hole blocking layer, and the 2mDBTBPDBq-II is 2-[3′-(dibenzothiophen-4-yl)biphenyl-3-yl]dibenzo[f,h]quinoxaline [0254] which contains a quinoxaline group, i.e. a π-electron-deficient nitrogen containing ring.
Regarding claim 19, the electron transport region include a Lithium (metal) containing electron injection layer [Table 9].
Examiner holds the opinion that the limited number of disclosed Light emitting devices in Ohsawa would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to readily envisage the claimed first and second emission layers disclosed in Light emitting device 9 [Table 9] wherein the first emission layer is directly in contact with the hole transport layer as disclosed in Light emitting device 8 [Table 7]. In the alternative, the claims are certainly obvious over the combination of elements disclosed, and the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Ohsawa does not disclose the phosphorescent dopants as the claimed metal carbene dopants of formula 4.
Molt discloses metal-carbene complexes comprising a central atom selected from iridium and platinum that has the structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
156
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein m is an integer of 1, 2 or 3 [claim 1], m may be zero, and L may also be a carbene ring containing ligand:
PNG
media_image3.png
148
104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0049]. The emitters may emit blue as well as other colors [0009]. Molt teaches that the platinum complexes may be used as an emitter, matrix material, charge transport material, especially hole transport material or charge blocker in OLEDs, and have a high quantum yield and a high stability in diodes [0009].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed formula 4 dopants as the phosphorescent dopants of Ohsawa because Molt teaches that the platinum complexes may be used as an emitter, matrix material, charge transport material, especially hole transport material or charge blocker in OLEDs, and have a high quantum yield and a high stability in diodes.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 20140124766 A1) in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1) and further in view of Jeong et al (US 20170104166 A1) or in view of Hack et al (US 20170207281 A1).
If Applicant disagrees that the claimed EBL is disclosed with sufficient specificity to read on the claims, the following rejection applies. This rejection applies to claims 8 and 12-14 regardless.
Jeong discloses that that a hole transport region typically has a structure of HIL/HTL/EBL wherein layers of each structure may be sequentially stacked from the first electrode 100 in this stated order [0117].
Hack also discloses typical sequence of stacking layers including in order an anode 115, a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 125, an electron blocking layer 130, an emissive layer 135, and so on [0119, Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have placed an EBL directly in contact with the light emitting layer and placing the HTL between the HIL and EBL in the OLED of Ohsawa because Jeong and Hack teach that this placement is effective for enhancing OLED properties in particular hole transport and electron blocking.
Regarding claims 8 and 12-14, Ohsawa, discussed above, discloses the second light emitting layers of 113c having two layers 113c-1 and 113c-2 each having the same hole transporting compound, electron transporting compound and phosphorescent compound. Present claims 8 and 12-14 only require an addition third layer also having the same three compounds. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), and so the addition of third layer would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 11, in the second light emitting layers of 113c, the weight ratio of the substance having a hole-transport property to the substance having an electron-transport property is preferably 1:9 to 9:1 [0109]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al (US 20180269418 A1) in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1) in view of Jeong et al (US 20170104166 A1) or Hack et al (US 20170207281 A1).
If Applicant disagrees that the claimed EBL is disclosed with sufficient specificity to read on the claims, the following rejection applies.
Jeong and Hack are combined with Ohsawa for the same reasons they are applied in the rejection above over Song only.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al (US 20180269418 A1) in view of Song et al (US 20140124766 A1) and further in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1).
Molt is combined with Ohsawa in view of Song for the same reasons it is combined with Ohsawa alone.
In case Applicant disagrees that Ohsawa disclose the claimed limitation of the first emission layer directly contacting the hole transport region, this rejection is concurrently applied. This rejection applies to claims 9-10 regardless.
Ohsawa, discussed above, discloses the details of the claimed OLED, but does not explicitly disclose one OLED device having the second emission layer with an amount of second electron transport host greater than the second hole transport host (disclosed in Light emitting element 9 in Table 9) and the first emission layer directly contacting the hole transport region (disclosed in Light emitting element 8 in Table 7).
Song, discussed above, discloses the first emission mixed layer (claimed first emission layer) directly on the hole transport layer. Song also discloses the device may include three or more emission mixed layers. In this case, the content of the hole-type host host_h gradually increases with decreasing distance to the hole transport layer 124b, and the content of the electron-type host host_e gradually increases with decreasing distance to the electron transport layer 128 [0095]. Song teaches that the arrangement of layers and gradient of hole-type host and electron-type host in the emission mixed layers ensures easy hole and electron injection through the hole transport layer and the electron transport layer, and achieving voltage reduction, preventing deterioration of luminous efficiency, and extending lifespan and enhancing stability [0093-0094, 0100].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used the claimed order of hole transport layer, first emission layer (with greater amount of hole transport host), optional third emission layer and second emission layer (with greater amount of electron transport host) in the device of Ohsawa because Song teaches that the arrangement of layers and gradient of hole-type host and electron-type host in the emission mixed layers ensures easy hole and electron injection through the hole transport layer and the electron transport layer, and achieving voltage reduction, preventing deterioration of luminous efficiency, and extending lifespan and enhancing stability.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al (US 20180269418 A1) in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1), further in view of Song et al (US 20140124766 A1) and further in view of Jeong et al (US 20170104166 A1) or Hack et al (US 20170207281 A1).
Jeong and Hack are combined with Ohsawa in view of Molt and Song for the same reasons they are applied in the rejection above over Song in view of Molt above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al (US 20180269418 A1) in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1) and further in view of Hofmann et al (US 20060250076 A1).
If Applicant disagrees that the above rejection of claim 17 under Ohsawa in view of Molt alone does not disclose the p-dopant with sufficient specificity, then the following rejection is concurrent.
Ohsawa does not explicitly disclose the hole transport layer comprising p-dopant with the claimed LUMO.
Hofmann discloses a light emitting diodes similar to the light emitting elements of Ohsawa that also comprise a hole transport layer [abstract], and discloses that the hole transport layer can be improved by adding a p-dopant such as F4-TCNQ [0076], which is the same p-dopant used in Applicant’s specification [see 0104-0107 of published application US 20210151691 A1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have used a p-dopant with the claimed LUMO in the hole transport layer of Ohsawa because Hofmann teaches that hole transport layers may be improved by p-dopants especially F4-TCNQ. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al (US 20180269418 A1) in view of Molt et al (US 20180351115 A1), further in view of Hofmann et al (US 20060250076 A1) and further in view of Jeong et al (US 20170104166 A1) or Hack et al (US 20170207281 A1).
Jeong and Hack are combined with Ohsawa in view of Molt and Hofmann for the same reasons they are applied in the rejection above over Ohsawa above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M DOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5464. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571-272-1302. 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.
MICHAEL M. DOLLINGER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1766
/MICHAEL M DOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766