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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12-23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “at least one compound in the m-EBL is not present in the EML.” There is no clear support for such a broad limitation on the device’s structure. Applicant provides one example device where this happens to be the case (see [0247]) but never broadly describes devices like this as the invention. Support exists for this device but not for all devices broadly that meet such a requirement. Similarly, claims 26 sets forth a limitation that requires that “no compound in the m-EBL is present in the HTL”. There is no clear support for such a broad limitation. Claim 27 also recites “no compound in the m-EBL is present in the HTL” and “wherein the hole transporting host from the EML is not present in the m-EBL.” There is no clear support for such a broad limitation. Applicant has not pointed to support for these limitations nor could any be found upon a search of the specification.
Claims 1 and 26 also each include the limitation “the first electrode or the second electrode comprises a charge generation layer”. While the specification provides that the device can comprise a charge generation layer, or that the electrode is a CGL, there is no description of either electrode comprising a CGL.
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, 3, 6, 8-10, 12-20, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spindler (US 2007/0070231596) in view of Lin (US 2020/00168818) and Seok et al (US 2018/0097052) (Seok).
In reference to Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12-20, 23 and 26, Spindler teaches an organic light emitting device with multiple hole transport layers comprising multiple materials and exemplifies such devices including device example 3 that includes an anode, a cathode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer3, a hole transport layer 2, a hole transport layer 1, an emission layer, and an electron transport layer wherein the hole transport layer 2 comprises 3 components that are NPB, Ah3 and rubrene, the hole transport layer 1 comprises NPB and AH3, the electron transport layer comprises a mixture of Alq, B-phen and Li and is in contact with the emission layer that are useful in display panel products (Spindler [0023] [0187]).
It is noted that while many of the names of materials functions is not identical to those instantly claimed, the specific names given to a component of a layered thin film device are not particularly limiting. For example, the names “hole transporting material” and an “electron transporting material” do not limit the structures of the material present in the layer, all charge transfer in such devices is from the movement of electrons.
Spindler teaches the device as described above. While Spindler does not expressly name any of the layers in the device to be a “charge generation layer”, the claimed layer does not have any specific positional requirements in the device and therefore the doped HTL 2 in the device meets the claim requirements of a charge generation layer.
While the dopant of the HTL 2 is not called a n-conductivity dopant or a p-conductivity dopant, the claim does not make any specific structural requirements for the dopant and therefore the dopant of HTL 2 meets the claim requirements.
While Spindler teaches emission layers comprising multiple host materials, it does not expressly teach the claimed emitting layers comprising 3 host materials and a phosphorescent material.
With respect to the difference, Lin teaches OLED devices comprising emitting layers including three host materials such as a first host, a second host, and a third host such as e.g. compounds 2, 3 and 10 (Lin [0104]) as shown below and a phosphorescent dopant (Lin [0018]). Lin specifically points to blue emitting materials such iridium complexes comprising ligands as shown below (Lin [0002] [0094]) or platinum complexes such as those shown below (Lin [0098]) each of which can optionally include one or more Deuterium atoms. Lin further teaches that devices incorporating these materials in the light emitting layer significantly improves overall device performance (Lin [00015]).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
234
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
198
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
152
100
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
156
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the emitting layer materials of Lin as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the emitting layer materials as described by Lin in order to substantially improve overall device performance and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Spindler in view of Lin teaches the use of these devices in multicolor display panels, Spindler does not expressly state that the devices are configured as stacked or tandem devices as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Seok teaches, in analogous art, the use of tandem devices comprising charge generation layers comprising n-type or p-type dopants between a plurality of light emitting stacks and that this design provides improvements in device lifetime and efficiency (Seok Fig. 1, Fig. 8, abstract, [0007] [0097] [0115] etc.).
In light of the motivation of using tandem device stacks as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the device structure as described by Seok in order to improve efficiency and lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: The emission layer meets the requirements of an emission layer and the hole transport layer 1 meets the requirements of a first layer that is an m-EBL comprising two components and wherein condition i and ii are each met.
For Claim 3: The electron transport layer meets the requirements of a m-ETL that comprises 3 components.
For Claim 6: The three hosts can be a hole transport host, electron transport host and wide-band gap host and the dopant reads on an emitter.
For Claim 8: The three host materials and the dopant read on a sensitizer, acceptor, hole and electron transport hosts.
For Claim 9: Reads on wherein m-EBL comprises two materials that could be hole or electron transporting.
For Claim 10: Reads on three hosts and a phosphorescent emitter.
For Claim 12: Reads on Ir or Pt.
For Claim 13: Reads on a blue phosphorescent emitter.
For Claim 14: Reads on a deuterium.
For Claim 15: Reads on a carbazole moiety at least.
For Claim 16: Reads on the first structure.
For Claim 17: Reads on the first structure.
For Claim 18: Reads on either the first structure or
PNG
media_image6.png
140
200
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 19: Reads on a deuterium atom.
For Claim 20: Reads on a display device.
For Claim 23: Reads on a tandem device that comprises a charge generation layer.
For Claim 26: Reads on wherein hole transport layer 1 is the m-EBL and hole transport layer 2 is the m-HTL.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 12-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al (US 2017/0104172) (Forrest) in view of Lin (US 2020/0168818) and Seok et al (US 2018/0097052) (Seok)..
In reference to claim 11, 6, 8-10, 12-21, 23 and 27, Forrest teaches a device as shown in figure 5, left, comprising a mixed electron blocking layer of CZSi and Tris-PCz, a hole transport layer of NPD, a hole injection layer of HATCN, an emission layer, a hole blocking layer of mCBP, an electron transport layer of Alq3, an electron injection layer of LiQ between an anode and a cathode that reads on the instant claims (Forrest Fig. 5, [0081]). Forrest further teaches that the device is useful for a variety of electronic components including displays and lighting devices etc. (Forrest [0053]).
PNG
media_image7.png
591
711
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Forrest further teaches that the materials used in examples are provided as non-limiting examples and that other materials can be used including mixtures of hosts and dopants as emission layer materials (Forrest [0049]) but does not expressly teach the claimed emitting layers comprising 3 host materials and a phosphorescent material.
With respect to the difference, Lin teaches OLED devices comprising emitting layers including three host materials such as a first host, a second host, and a third host such as e.g. compounds 2, 3 and 10 (Lin [0104]) as shown below and a phosphorescent dopant (Lin [0018]). Lin specifically points to blue emitting materials such iridium complexes comprising ligands as shown below (Lin [0002] [0094]) or platinum complexes such as those shown below (Lin [0098]) each of which can optionally include one or more Deuterium atoms. Lin further teaches that devices incorporating these materials in the light emitting layer significantly improves overall device performance (Lin [00015]).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
234
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
198
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
152
100
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
156
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the emitting layer materials of Lin as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the emitting layer materials as described by Lin in order to substantially improve overall device performance and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Forrest in view of Lin teaches the use of these devices in multicolor display panels, Forrest does not expressly state that the devices are configured as stacked or tandem devices as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Seok teaches, in analogous art, the use of tandem devices comprising charge generation layers comprising n-type or p-type dopants between a plurality of light emitting stacks and that this design provides improvements in device lifetime and efficiency (Seok Fig. 1, Fig. 8, abstract, [0007] [0097] [0115] etc.).
In light of the motivation of using tandem device stacks as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the device structure as described by Seok in order to improve efficiency and lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: The emission layer meets the requirements of an emission layer and the mixed electron blocking meets the requirements of a first layer that is an m-EBL comprising two components and wherein condition I and ii are both met.
For Claim 6: The three hosts can be a hole transport host, electron transport host and wide-band gap host and the dopant reads on an emitter.
For Claim 8: The three host materials and the dopant read on a sensitizer, acceptor, hole and electron transport hosts.
For Claim 9: Reads on wherein m-EBL comprises two materials that could be hole or electron transporting.
For Claim 10: Reads on three hosts and a phosphorescent emitter.
For Claim 12: Reads on Ir or Pt.
For Claim 13: Reads on a phosphorescent emitter.
For Claim 14: Reads on a deuterium.
For Claim 15: Reads on a carbazole moiety at least.
For Claim 16: Reads on the first structure.
For Claim 17: Reads on the first structure.
For Claim 18: Reads on either the first structure or
PNG
media_image6.png
140
200
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
For Claim 19: Reads on a deuterium atom.
For Claim 20: Reads on a display device.
For Claim 21: Reads on wherein the mEBL does not have the same materials as in the HTL.
For Claim 23: Reads on a tandem device that comprises a charge generation layer.
For Claim 27: Reads on wherein no compound in the m-EBL is present in the HTL and wherein the EML comprises 3 hosts and an emitter that meet the requirements thereof.
In reference to claim 22, Forrest in view of Lin and Seok teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Forrest does not expressly teach what the triplet energies are for the various materials used therein. However, Forrest does teach that such materials can be selected from among known materials for use in OLED devices (See e.g. [0056]). Further, Forrest teaches the blocking layer materials should have a triplet energy that is preferably greater than that of the emissive material (Forrest [0018]) and specifically at least 0.3 eV greater (Forrest [0059]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the additional requirement that at least one material in the m-EBL is different than the materials of the EML or that the device is a tandem or stacked device comprising an electrode that comprises a CGL overcomes the art of record. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing. Neither Spindler, Lin or Forrest require that the emission layers comprise any of the same materials of the electron blocking layers. Further, the tandem device structures are exceptionally well known in the art with taught benefits as pointed to above herein.
Applicant further argues that the inclusion of an EBL with at least one material that is not present in the EML gives rise to unexpected improvements in EQE and lifetime. This argument is not convincing. The comparison provided in the specification is not to the prior art. Instead, Applicant demonstrates that a multi component EBL can be better than a single component EBL even when the EBL and hole transport host of the EML are the same material in the comparison. This is fundamentally different than what Applicant has argued. In fact, additional examples in the instant specification demonstrate greater improvements from matching one of the EML material layers to a material in the m-EBL (see examples in table 4). Spindler and Forrest each teach in the recited art multicomponent electron blocking layers. The comparison to a single component blocking layer is irrelevant to the obviousness of the instant claims over the recited art.
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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights