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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s election without traverse of wherein (a) the first compound is represented by Formula 1, (b) the host is a compound represented by Formula 311-1 and a compound represented by Formula 312-1, and (c) the dopant is represented by Formula 411 in the reply filed on 02/24/2025 was previously acknowledged.
After reconsideration of the requirement of election of species set forth in the Office action dated 12/30/2024 and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement of election of species was withdrawn with respect to (b) the host and (c) the dopant ONLY. The requirement of election of species with respect to (a) the first compound has been maintained.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 is amended and claim 8 is cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, and 12-20 are pending.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly cited Yamazaki et al. US-20140264308-A1 and Langer et al. WO-2010079051-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 40-42 of the reply dated 03/23/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 41 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment. Specifically, the claim have been amended to recite the first layer is in direct contact with each of two emission layers.
Examiner's response – The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein the emission area comprises two emission layers and wherein the first layer is in direct contact with each of the two emission layers and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of newly cited Yamazaki et al. US-20140264308-A1 and Langer et al. WO-2010079051-A1.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 41 that claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 12-20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and therefore applicant requests that these rejections be withdrawn.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to these claims and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. US-20140264308-A1 (hereinafter "Yamazaki") in view of Langer et al. WO-2010079051-A1 (hereinafter "Langer-WO", see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Langer-MT").
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, and 16-20, Yamazaki teaches an organic light-emitting element in which an electroluminescent layer comprising a first emission region and a second emission region is disposed between an anode and a cathode (¶ [0024]), and comprising a gap layer between the first emission region and the second emission region (¶ [0061], FIG. 1). Yamazaki teaches wherein the first emission region comprises a host and a guest material (¶ [0026]) and the second emission region comprises a host and a guest material (¶ [0025]). Yamazaki teaches the host material to be CBP (¶ [0086]). Yamazaki teaches distance between the first emission region and the second emission region, the gap layer, is preferably 1 nm or more and 30 nm or less (¶ [0028], and ¶ [0061] and [0074]). Yamazaki teaches wherein the device comprises a hole transport layer between the anode and the first emission region and an electron transport layer between the second emission region and the cathode (¶ [0070], Fig. 3). Yamazaki teaches the element further comprising a thin-film transistor (¶ [0120]-[0121], FIG. 5), wherein the thin-film transistor includes a source electrode (¶ [0120]) and a drain electrode (¶ [0121]), and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode (¶ [0123]-[0124]).
Yamazaki does not specifically teach a device wherein the gap layer comprises a first compound, where a bandgap of the first compound is 3.5 eV and the first compound includes a compound represented by one of claimed Formulae 1 to 3. However, Yamazaki teaches the gap layer is formed of a hole blocking material (¶ [0071]).
Langer teaches siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds for use as a hole blocking material in an organic light emitting device (Langer-MT, page 1 of 61, lines 6-10; Langer-MT, page 5 of 61, lines 13-19). Langer teaches that when using the compounds, OLEDs are obtained which have good efficiencies and a long service life and which can be operated in particular at a low operating voltage (Langer-MT, page 5 of 61, lines 20-22). Langer teaches specific examples of the siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds including
PNG
media_image1.png
235
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yamazaki by forming the gap layer out of the hole blocking material, as taught by Langer. One would have been motivated to do so because Yamazaki teaches the gap layer of an organic light emitting device is formed of a hole blocking material and Langer teaches siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds for use as a hole blocking material in an organic light emitting device. 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 pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Langer teaches organic light emitting device comprising the compounds have good efficiencies and a long service life and which can be operated in particular at a low operating voltage and therefore forming the gap layer in the device of Yamazaki out of the compound of Langer would be expected to yield the benefit of good efficiencies, a long service life, and low operating voltage, as described above.
Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the compound
PNG
media_image1.png
235
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, because it would have been choosing from the list of exemplary siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds specifically taught by Langer, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a hole blocking material and possessing the benefits taught by Langer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds of Langer having the benefits taught by Langer in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Compound
PNG
media_image1.png
235
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of Langer meets the claimed Formula 1 and corresponds to the claimed Compound 19.
Langer appears silent with respect to the property of wherein a bandgap of the compound
PNG
media_image1.png
235
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is about 3.5 eV or more and wherein a lowest excitation triplet energy level of the compound is about 2.8 eV or more.
The instant specification recites that Compound 19
PNG
media_image2.png
168
127
media_image2.png
Greyscale
has a lowest excitation triplet energy level (T1) of 3.07 eV and a bandgap of 4.12 eV (specification page 120, Table 1). Since Langer teaches compound
PNG
media_image1.png
235
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, the identical structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein a bandgap of the compound of Langer is about 3.5 eV or more and wherein a lowest excitation triplet energy level of the compound is about 2.8 eV or more is considered to be inherent and falls 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 inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2112.
The host material CBP is a host compound represented by one of Formulae 311-1 and corresponds to the claimed compound H-01.
The gap layer creates space between the first emission region and the second emission region and therefore is a spacing layer comprising a spacing compound.
The distance of the gap layer is preferably 1 nm or more and 30 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 nm to about 10 nm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Therefore, the modified device of Yamazaki in view of Langer meets claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, and 16-19.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. US-20140264308-A1 (hereinafter "Yamazaki") in view of Langer et al. WO-2010079051-A1 (hereinafter "Langer-WO", see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Langer-MT") as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lee et al. KR-102100620-B1 (hereinafter "Lee-KR" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Lee-MT") and Ko et al. US-20180114927-A1 (hereinafter "Ko").
Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki in view of Langer teaches the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Yamazaki in view of Langer does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the host and dopant are as recited in claims 12-15. However, Yamazaki teaches a fluorescent material first dopant and a hole transport material host (¶ [0061]) and the second emission region comprises a phosphorescent material second dopant and an electron transport material host (¶ [0061]).
Lee teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer between and anode and a cathode (page 2 of 14, lines 10-13) comprising a host material, a first dopant material, and a second dopant material, wherein the first dopant material may include a first delayed fluorescent material and the second dopant material may include a phosphorescent material (Lee-MT, page 2 of 14, lines 36-38). Lee teaches as a result of these materials, efficiency and life of the organic light emitting device can be improved (Lee-MT, page 6 of 14, lines 3-6). Lee teach examples of the first delayed fluorescent material include DABNA-1 (5,9-Diphenyl-5H,9H-[1,4]benzazaborino[2,3,4-kl]phenazaborine) (Lee-MT, page3 of 14, line 34 to page 4 of 14, line 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form one of the first emission region and/or second emission region in the device of Yamazaki comprising a host, a first delayed fluorescent dopant, and a second phosphorescent dopant, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and life, as taught by Lee.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. US-20140264308-A1 (hereinafter "Yamazaki") in view of Langer et al. WO-2010079051-A1 (hereinafter "Langer-WO", see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Langer-MT") as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lee et al. KR-102100620-B1 (hereinafter "Lee-KR" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Lee-MT") and Ko et al. US-20180114927-A1 (hereinafter "Ko").
Regarding claims 13-15, Yamazaki in view of Langer teaches the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Yamazaki in view of Langer does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the host and dopant are as recited in claims 12-15. However, Yamazaki teaches a fluorescent material first dopant and a hole transport material host (¶ [0061]) and the second emission region comprises a phosphorescent material second dopant and an electron transport material host (¶ [0061]).
Lee teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer between and anode and a cathode (page 2 of 14, lines 10-13) comprising a host material, a first dopant material, and a second dopant material, wherein the first dopant material may include a first delayed fluorescent material and the second dopant material may include a phosphorescent material (Lee-MT, page 2 of 14, lines 36-38). Lee teaches as a result of these materials, efficiency and life of the organic light emitting device can be improved (Lee-MT, page 6 of 14, lines 3-6). Lee teach examples of the first delayed fluorescent material include DABNA-1 (5,9-Diphenyl-5H,9H-[1,4]benzazaborino[2,3,4-kl]phenazaborine) (Lee-MT, page3 of 14, line 34 to page 4 of 14, line 1).
Ko teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer between a first and second electrode and comprising an organometallic compound of Formula 1 comprising a ligand of Formula 2A (¶ [0032] and ¶ [0008]) and a host (¶ [0211]). Ko teaches examples of the organometallic compound in paragraph [0133] including compound 1
PNG
media_image3.png
187
237
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 15), and examples of the organometallic compound's host in paragraph [0247] including H36
PNG
media_image4.png
247
213
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 50) . Ko teaches the organic light-emitting device including the organometallic compound having a low driving voltage, and high luminescent efficiency (¶ [0373]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form one of the first emission region and/or second emission region in the device of Yamazaki comprising a host, a first delayed fluorescent dopant, and a second phosphorescent dopant, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and life, as taught by Lee.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the phosphorescent dopant and the host out of out of the materials taught by Ko, based on the teaching of Ko. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a low driving voltage, and high luminescent efficiency, as taught by Ko.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights