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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there are unexpected results in the claimed embodiments in which the claimed auxiliary layer comprises a TADF dopant without a phosphorescent dopant, and the claimed light emitting layers comprise a phosphorescent dopant without a TADF dopant. Applicant has shown impressively increased lifetime over other combinations of layers, and has also measured the efficiency of the OLEDs. This argument is not convincing.
Firstly, Applicant’s contention that the unexpected results arise from the claimed auxiliary layer comprises a TADF dopant without a phosphorescent dopant, and the claimed light emitting layers comprise a phosphorescent dopant without a TADF dopant would require the amendment of claim 1 to include the limitations of claims 2 and 5.
With regards to Applicant’s allegation of unexpected results found in the present invention, Applicants are reminded that any showing of unexpected results must meet three criteria: a) the experimental data must fairly compare the claimed invention to the analogous invention of the closest prior art, b) the showing must be commensurate in scope with the present claims, and c) the results must be, in fact, unexpected.
In the instant case, regarding criteria a), Applicant has not show a light emitting layer stack comprising phosphorescent dopant – fluorescent non-TADF dopant – phosphorescent dopant. It appears from the prior art that the advantages of TADF dopant between phosphorescent dopant layers are also observed in fluorescent blue exciplex emitters [see p9515, section Universality of the proposed EML structure, in Zhao et al (J.Mater. Chem. C,2018, 6, 9510).
Regarding criteria b), Applicants have shown results for four TADF dopants, all of which are very similar Boron compounds within the scope of the D compounds of claim 16, though not the DA compounds of claim 16 on pages 19-22 of the claims of 10/30/2025, as well as only four phosphorescent dopants, all of which are very similar Platinum compounds within the scope of PD compounds in claim 15, though not the PR compounds that are Iridium complexes. Applicant has not shown unexpected results for every TADF dopant and every phosphorescent dopant, but just two narrow genera of each.
Regarding criterion c), it is not clear that the results are unexpected. See, for example, US 20180047926 which teaches that with three stacked light emitting layers include a first- and third- light emitting layer phosphorescent dopant, the second (middle, auxiliary) light emitting layer is preferably a fluorescent blue dopant and especially preferably a TADF blue dopant [0113, 0147]. See also Zhao et al (J.Mater. Chem. C,2018, 6, 9510) for improvements
Applicant argues that TBPe in Klime is not a TADF dopant, but rather a typical fluorescent dopant. This argument is not convincing. While it is true that TBPe is not used as a TADF dopant, the combination of Klime in view of Yamaoka still rejects the claims, since Yamaoka teaches that the dopants may be fluorescent emitters [col 16 lines 36-44] or TADF and is preferably a TADF [col 19 lines 44-53], and the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that either could be used as a blue emitter. Klime is relied upon to teach the stacking structures of the claims, not the specific TADF compounds. Note that the rejection of 07/30/2025, on p4, cites the TADF materials in Yamaoka that make obvious the compounds of claim 16 (that sentence has been put in bold typeface below). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, see Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 17-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka et al (US 10510806 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Yamaoka disclose that the display device in a mobile phone and other electronic device may include the disclosed OLED [col 54 lines 57-63].
Yamaoka discloses an OLED comprising a first and second electrode having a light emitting area with a stacked-layer structure of a first light-emitting layer, a second light-emitting layer, and a third light-emitting layer. The light-emitting layer includes an electron-transport material, a hole-transport material, and a light-emitting material [abstract] in each layer [Fig 1B, col 8 lines 24-39]. The host materials preferably form an exciplex [col 9 lines 15-19]. Each of the layers may include a phosphorescent dopant or a TADF dopant [col 19 line 44, col 9 line 25]. The middle layer may read on the auxiliary layer of the claims placing the higher and lower apart [Fig. 2A].
If Applicant argues that the claimed embodiments are not disclosed with sufficient specificity and that examiner is picking and choosing with improper hindsight, Examiner notes that the rejection is made under 35 USC 103 obviousness. Examiner holds the opinion that there a finite number of disclosed options for either TADF or phosphorescent dopant that would allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to prepare the claimed combination of TADF and phosphorescent dopants. The claims are 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).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimes et al (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1903068) in view of Yamaoka et al (US 10510806 B2).
Klimes discloses an OLED having electrodes and a light emitting area wherein the light emitting area teaches alternating layers of light emitting layers comprising phosphorescent dopant PtNON alternating with light emitting layers (EL) comprising a blue dopant TBPe [Fig 4a], wherein examples include the fluorescent dopant containing EL (which reads on the claimed auxiliary layer) may be both within a phosphorescent containing EL or on it, and includes 3 light emitting layers with 3 auxiliary layers both within and between the phosphorescent containing ELs [Fig 4a, Device 10]. Klimes uses a mCBP host material in each layer, which is the compound HT-07 of claim 14. The phosphorescent ELs include a different concentration gradient in each layer increasing sequentially from one electrode to another [abstract, Fig4a] as well as an ET layer and an HT layer [p2, section 2.1]. The phosphorescent dopant is platinum(II) 9-(pyridin-2-yl)-2-(9-(pyridin-2-yl)-9H-carbazol-2-yloxy)-9H-carbazole (PtNON) [abstract] which is a Pt complex with tetradentate ligand similar in structure to the compounds of Group 3 in claim 15.
Klimes does not disclose the layers also including an electron transport host.
Yamaoka, discussed above, discloses a similar OLED to Klimes and teaches that the light emitting layers include a dopant and a pair of HT host and ET host that form an exciplex in order to reduce the driving voltage of the light emitting element [col 9 lines 15-19]. The ET host includes triazine compounds such as 2-{4-[3-(N-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)-9H-carbazol-9-yl]phenyl}-4,6-diphenyl-1,3,5-triazine [col 14 lines 12-13] which is a substituted embodiment of ET013 and ET014 of claim 14. The TADF materials include dicarbazole skeleton compounds [col 20 lines 50-51] similar in structure to DA-03 and DA-04 of claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have added the claimed ET host to the layers of Klimes because Yamaoka teaches that it can form an exciplex and reduce the driving voltage of the light emitting element.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 20180047926 A1) in view of Yamaoka et al (US 10510806 B2).
Tanaka discloses a display device a part of a mobile phone [0010] comprising an OLED having a first light emitting layer comprising a phosphorescent dopant, a third light emitting layer comprising a phosphorescent dopant, and a second (auxiliary) light emitting layer comprising a fluorescent dopant and preferably a TADF dopant [claims 1-2, 5, 16; 0043, 0062].
Tanaka does not disclose the TADF containing second light emitting layer comprising an electron transporting host and a hole transporting host.
Yamaoka, discussed above, discloses a similar OLED to Tanaka and teaches that the light emitting layers include a dopant and a pair of HT host and ET host that form an exciplex in order to reduce the driving voltage of the light emitting element [col 9 lines 15-19]. The ET host includes triazine compounds such as 2-{4-[3-(N-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)-9H-carbazol-9-yl]phenyl}-4,6-diphenyl-1,3,5-triazine [col 14 lines 12-13] which is a substituted embodiment of ET013 and ET014 of claim 14. The TADF materials include dicarbazole skeleton compounds [col 20 lines 50-51] similar in structure to DA-03 and DA-04 of claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of Applicant’s invention to have added the claimed ET and HT hosts to the layers of Tanaka because Yamaoka teaches that it can form an exciplex and reduce the driving voltage of the light emitting element.
Regarding claims with additional phosphorescent light emitting layers and auxiliary layers therein, even if the claims require more layers than any of the examples in Yamaoka or Tanaka, the duplication of parts is generally considered obvious in the absence of unexpected results, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 1-2,4-14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka et al (US 10510806 B2) in view of Zhao et al (J.Mater. Chem. C,2018, 6, 9510).
If Applicant feels the amended claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 17-18 and 21 are not disclosed with sufficient specificity in Yamaoka, then the following rejection concurrently applies. The rejection below applies to claims 6-11, 14, 16 and 19-20 regardless.
Yamaoka, discussed above, does not explicitly disclose one embodiment with a phosphorescent-TADF-phosphorescent stack of three or more light emitting layers. Yamaoka is directed, however, to white OLEDs (WOLED) that have a mixture of dopant colors to form the white emission [col 21 lines 43-63].
Zhao discloses an improvement to WOLED efficiency roll-off and color rendering by strategically inserting ultrathin layers of long-wavelength phosphorescent emitters (UEMLs) in appropriate positions in blue emitters with bipolar transport characteristics [abstract] wherein the phosphorescent red and/or green UEML layers are alternated with the blue TADF light emitting layers [p9511, right col], see also Fig 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
388
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The alternating phos-TADF-phos layers are stacked in greater or lesser repetition, and with the same or different phosphorescent dopants:
Device W [p9511, right col]: DMAC-DPS (7.5 nm)/Ir(MDQ)2(acac) (0.03 nm)/DMAC-DPS (2.5 nm)/ Ir(ppy)2(acac) (0.09 nm)/DMAC-DPS (2.5 nm)/Ir(MDQ)2(acac) (0.03 nm)/DMAC-DPS (7.5 nm)
Device W1 [p9514 left col]: DMAC-DPS (10 nm)/PO-01 (0.25 nm)/DMAC-DPS (10 nm)
Device W2: DMAC-DPS (7.5 nm)/PO-01 (0.05 nm)/ DMAC-DPS(5 nm)/PO-01 (0.05 nm)/DMAC-DPS (7.5 nm) (Device W2), and
Device W3: DMAC-DPS (7.5 nm)/PO-01 (0.03 nm)/DMAC-DPS (2.5 nm)/PO-01 (0.03 nm)/DMAC-DPS (2.5 nm)/PO-01 (0.03 nm)/ DMAC-DPS (7.5 nm).
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 structure of TADF light emitting layers between phosphorescent light emitting layers in the OLED of Yamaoka because Zhao teaches an improvement to WOLED efficiency roll-off and color rendering by strategically arranging the layers.
Regarding claims with additional phosphorescent light emitting layers and auxiliary layers therein, even if the claims require more layers than any of the examples in Zhao, the duplication of parts is generally considered obvious in the absence of unexpected results, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
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.
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 at 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