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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 04/01/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-12, 15, and 17-20 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (WO 2021/049656 A1) in view of Tamano et al. (JP 2011/001475 A) and Nakamura et al. (US 2019/0319210 A1) is withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
No claims have been added.
Claims 13-14 and 16 have been canceled.
Claim 1 is instantly amended.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 17-20 are pending in the application, and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 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, 4-6, 9-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2010/0308718 A1) in view of Tokairin et al. (US 2007/0063638 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kubota discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode (an anode), a second electrode (a cathode), and an interlayer between the two electrodes (abstract) comprising two light emitting layers (a light emitting layer… laminated with the other light emitting layer, paragraph 0115), and the first emitting layer comprises two asymmetric pyrene derivatives (paragraph 0042).
Kubota gives examples of the asymmetric pyrene derivatives (paragraph 0067), which include AN-2 (page 4) and AN-9, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
203
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
248
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These compounds are identical to instant compounds H34 and H35, respectively.
Kubota teaches that when an organic thin film layer comprises at least one kind of these asymmetric pyrene derivatives, an organic device exhibiting great efficiency of light emission and having a long lifetime may be obtained (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one asymmetric pyrene derivative in a first light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device in order to obtain an organic device exhibiting great efficiency of light emission and having a long lifetime, as taught by Kubota.
However, while Kubota teaches that the device may comprise an additional laminated light emitting layer, as discussed above, Kubota does not teach nor fairly suggest that the second light emitting layer comprises a host material which meets the instant energy level relationships.
In analogous art, Tokairin teaches a white color light emitting organic electroluminescent device including a light emitting layer comprised of two laminated light emitting layers, one of which emits bluish light, and the other which emits yellow-to-reddish light, and the emitting layers comprise an asymmetric host compound containing a condensed ring (abstract).
Tokairin gives examples of suitable asymmetric pyrene-based compounds for use in the light emitting layers, which include compound BH21 (page 10), which identical to instant H34, and BH17 (page 9), which is identical to instant H35.
Tokairin also gives examples of suitable host materials for the second light emitting layer, which include compound BH2 (page 6), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
228
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that this compound is identical to compound H4 (page 30 of the instant specification).
Tokairin teaches that the lifetime of a white color organic EL device can be significantly prolonged by constituting a light emitting layer by means of a laminate of a bluish color light emitting layer and a yellow-to-reddish color light emitting layer and incorporating an asymmetric compound containing a condensed ring into the light emitting layer upon production of the device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laminated, light emitting layer comprising an asymmetric, condensed ring, anthracene compound of Tokairin as the additional, laminated light emitting layer in the emitting layer of Kubota in order to obtain an organic electroluminescent device with white light emission, and which has significantly prolonged lifetime, as taught by Tokairin.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the energy relationship requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given in H4 on page 30 (BH2 of Tokairin), and in H34 and H35 on page 31 (AN-2 and AN-9 of Kubota), of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Kubota and Tokairin read on the claims.
Kubota and Tokairin are silent to the triplet energy levels of the first, second, and third host compound satisfying the claimed equations. However, triplet energy level is considered to be an inherent property of each compound. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the first and second compound are used in the first emitting layer and the third compound is used in the second emitting layer in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed triplet energy level relationships described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kubota and Tokairin, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kubota and Tokairin was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 2, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, and Kubota also teaches that the device comprises a hole transport layer between the anode and emission layer and an electron transport layer (electron injection layer) between the emission layer and the cathode (paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a hole transporting and electron transporting layer into the device of Kubota and Tokairin, as taught by Kubota.
With respect to claim 4, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, and the first and second emission layers are in direct contact (laminated), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Tokairin also teaches that the device is a white light emitting device (paragraph 0099). As white light comprises blue light, the teaching of white light is interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant claim.
With respect to claim 6, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Tokairin also recommends using a fluorescent dopant in the yellow-to-reddish emitting layer (paragraphs 0100 and 0107).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fluorescent compound in the light emitting layer, as taught by Tokairin.
With respect to claim 9, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the device and compounds discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given in H4 on page 30 (BH2 of Tokairin), and in H34 and H35 on page 31 (AN-2 and AN-9 of Kubota), of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Kubota and Tokairin read on the claims.
Kubota and Tokairin are silent to the ability for recombination to take place at the interface between the first and second emission layers. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition/device structure. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the first and second compounds are used in the first emitting layer and the third compound is used in the second emitting layer in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed recombination described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kubota and Tokairin, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed device and compounds and the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kubota and Tokairin was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 10, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compounds discussed above to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given in H4 on page 30 (BH2 of Tokairin), and in H34 and H35 on page 31 (AN-2 and AN-9 of Kubota), of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Kubota and Tokairin read on the claims.
Kubota and Tokairin are silent to charge transport capacity of the first and second host materials. However, this is considered to be a property of each compound. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the first and second compounds are used in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Kubota and Tokairin, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed compound properties and the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Kubota and Tokairin was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 11, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, and Tokairin also teaches that the thickness of the bluish color light emitting layer is preferably 10 to 30 nm, and the thickness of the yellow-to-reddish color light emitting layer is preferably 30 to 50 nm.
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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the ratio of the thicknesses of the bluish color light emitting layer to the yellow-to-reddish color light emitting layer falls within the claimed ratio of about 4:6 to about 6:4. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 12, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above. However, neither Kubota nor Tokairin fairly teach that the weight ratio of the first and second host is in a range of about 1:9 to 9:1.
When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (See MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 15, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, and the third host is an anthracene-derivative material, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 17, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, and the third host material is identical to instant compound H4, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 18, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, and the device comprises one light-emitting layer (m=1) comprising the first and second light emitting layers and no charge generation layer (m-1), as discussed above.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Tokairin also teaches that white light emitting organic electroluminescent devices are suitable for use in a full color-display device using a color filter (paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Kubota and Tokairin in an electronic apparatus comprising a color filter, such as a full color display device, as taught by Tokairin.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2010/0308718 A1) in view of Tokairin et al. (US 2007/0063638 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2021/0167311 A1)
With respect to claim 3, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Kubota nor Tokairin teach that the emitting layers should both comprise the same dopant compound.
In analogous art, Jeon teaches an organic light emitting device wherein the light emitting layer comprise a host, dopant, and sensitizer (abstract).
Jeon teaches Examples 1 through 11 in Table 3 (page 596) which all comprise a first and second host, sensitizer, and dopant. Jeon goes on to teach Comparative Examples 1F, 2F-1, 2F-2, 3F, 4F, 5F-1, 5F-2, 6F, 7F, 8F, and 9F in Table 4 (page 597), which are analogous to Examples 1 through 11 respectively, except that they do not comprise a sensitizer.
Jeon teaches that the devices comprising a sensitizer demonstrate improved characteristics such as improved lifespan, external quantum efficiency, and roll-off compared to their respective devices which lack a sensitizer (paragraph 0366).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sensitizer dopant material in any of the light emitting layers of Kubota and Tokairin in order to obtain improved lifespan, external quantum efficiency, and roll-off, as taught by Jeon.
Examiner notes that the sensitizer compound of Jeon is being interpreted to meet the requirements of the instant dopant as Jeon teaches that the sensitizer acts as an electrical dopant (paragraph 0068 and Figure 2).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2010/0308718 A1) in view of Tokairin et al. (US 2007/0063638 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Voges et al. (US 2017/0331053 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Kubota and Tokairin teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Kubota also teaches that the device comprises a hole transport layer between the emitting layer and the anode (paragraph 0097) and that the bluish color light emitting layer may be adjacent to the hole transporting layer (see for example paragraph 0018), or that the yellow-to-reddish color light emitting layer may be adjacent to the hole transporting layer (see for example paragraph 0022).
However, neither Kubota nor Tokairin teach that the interlayer further comprises an electron blocking layer between the emitting layer and the hole transporting layer.
In analogous art, Voges teaches a monoarylamine compound for use in an organic layer of an electroluminescent device (abstract) such as an electron blocking layer which is directly adjacent to the emitting layer (paragraph 0080).
Voges teaches that when incorporated into a layer in the hole transport region of an organic electroluminescent device, the monoarylamine compound provides an organic light-emitting device with better lifetime and efficiency (paragraph 0134).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monoarylamine-containing electron blocking layer into a layer adjacent to the first or second emitting layers of the organic electroluminescent device of Kubota and Tokairin in order to obtain an organic light-emitting device with better lifetime and efficiency, as taught by Voges.
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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights