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 Objections
Claims 16 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 16 has a typographical errpr “at least one dopant Esis in a range”.
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "wherein the compound comprising the least one moieity is a compound". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5-6, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang et al (US 2018/0366677) (Tsang) and further in view of Han et al (KR 101884130) (Han).
It is noted that when utilizing KR 101884130, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2020/0194706 which is an English language equivalent of the reference because the US PG-PUB is the national stage entry of the international application upon which the document is based.
In reference to claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-18, Tsang teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer wherein the light emitting layer comprises a first host material, a second host material and a light-emitting material of a dopant and wherein the second host material has an electron transport property. Tsang teaches that the device has at least one electron transport layer between the light emitting layer and the cathode and wherein the second host material is the same material as the constituent material of the electron transport layer nearest to the light-emitting layer among the electron transport layers and is a triazine compound general formulae (1) or (2) or derivative thereof (Tsang [0008]). Tsang exemplifies a device with a structure such as those described for example 4 (Tsang [0149]; Fig 15) with the following structure [ITO (Anode): HAT-CN (HIL): Tris-PCz (HTL) : 4CzIPN:mCBP:T2T (EML) : T2T (ETL-1) : BPy-TP2: Liq (ETL-2) : LiF (HIL) : Al (Cathode)].
PNG
media_image1.png
448
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the difference between this example structure and that instantly claimed is the selection of an alternative second host material and first electron transport layer material to T2T as exemplified therein that can be selected from triazine compounds of formula 2 or derivatives thereof (Tsang [0008]) that broadly include the claimed compounds. Tsang does not specifically exemplify the compound as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
236
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to the difference, Han teaches, in analogous art, the compound ET-02 below for use as an electron transporting material in organic light emitting devices with a LUMO of 2.75 eV and HOMO 6.25 (Han Table 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
294
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Han further teaches that the use of this material in an organic EL device achieves high efficiency and low voltage as well as long life characteristics (Han [0008] [0016] [0059]).
In light of the motivation of using ET-2 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 ET-2 as described by Han in order to achieve high efficiency and low voltage as well as long life characteristics and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Tsang teaches the LUMO energy of mCBP is -2.4 eV ([0138], fig 14) and that LiQ has a LUMO energy less than -3.0 but does not detail the exact value and that the T2T has a LUMO of -3. Similarly, Han teaches that ET-02 has a LUMO energy of -2.75 (between -2.4 of the first host and the less than -3 of the electron transport layer material).
For Claim 1: Reads on the claimed device structure with an anode, cathode, light emitting layer, hole transport region and electron transport region, the first host of Tsang that is mCP corresponds to the second host of the claims, the second host of Tsang that is ET-02 corresponds to the first host of the claims, a dopant, the first electron transport layer corresponds to an electron transport auxiliary layer comprising the ET-02 that is the same material as the claimed first host, the second electron transport layer comprising BPy-Cz and LIQ corresponds to the electron transport layer, the LiF layer corresponds to the electron injection layer and ET-02 reads on a compound of formula B-4 wherein X1 and X3 are each N, X5 is CH, A5, A7 and A9 are each N, each R21 is phenyl, one R1 is phenyl and one R1 is biphenyl, L1 is biphenylene and wherein 3.15 > 2.75 > 2.4 eV.
For Claim 2: Reads on 6.25 > 6.0 eV.
For Claim 3: Reads on 0.5 eV.
For Claim 5: Reads on 0.4 eV.
For Claim 6: Reads on 0.35 eV.
For Claims 9-10: Reads on formula B-4 is selected.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula 7.
For Claim 13: Reads on 2.75 > 2.4 eV and 6.25 > 6.0 eV.
For Claim 14: Reads on 0.35 eV and 0.25 eV.
For Claim 16: Reads on 10% dopant.
For Claim 17: Reads on co-deposition.
For Claim 18: Reads on at least a hole injection and hole transport layer.
In reference to claims 12 and 15, Tsang in view of Han teaches the device as described above for claim 1.
Tsang does not exemplify that the device has the claimed ratio of host materials. However, Tsang teaches generally that the ratio of the first host material to the second host material is within the bounds of 10:90 to 95:5 (Tsang [0084] [0085]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that neither Tsang nor Han and the rationale for combination does not address these limitations with the requisite articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Applicant argues that Tsang does not teach that the first host equals an aETL material (a different layer and a different host). This argument is not convincing. The name given to the layer or material by the prior art or instant claims does not limit the layer. The second host of Tsang meets all structural limitations of the first host of the instant claims. Applicant can call the material any name whatsoever, but the structural and property relationships define the material, not the given name. Similarly, the aETL material is the same as the first electron transport layer material of Tsang. Changing the name of a material or layer does not differentiate it from the identical layer in the prior art.
Applicant also argues that neither Tsang nor Han suggests using an electron-transport material as a host of the emitting layer—much less as the first host—and simultaneously as the material of a dedicated aETL. This is simply an incorrect assertion. Tsang teaches these exact concepts in paragraph [0008], the relevant portions of which are reproduced below for clarity.
PNG
media_image4.png
212
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues that Tsang and Han fail to disclose the feature concerning the LUMO energy levels of materials in each layer. However, Tsang demonstrates this exact feature by way of examples and the substitution with alternative materials that still meet this relative electronic property such as the material ET-02 is considered obvious for the reasons stated in the rejection above herein. The motivation to use the material ET-02 does not have to be the same motivation as that described by Applicant. Selecting the material ET-02 for the rationale taught by Tsang in view of Han as described above results in a combination that meets the claim requirements.
Applicant further argues that claims 5 and 6 recite additional limitations on LUMO values that Tsang in view of Han does not teach. Tsang exemplifies the devices that have these properties and the combination of Tsang in view of Han meets the claim limitations as described above herein.
The rejections included herein have been updated for clarity and to address the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
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