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(b)
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9-18 are 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 1 includes a Chemical Formula B-4 that is not listed in the claim limitations and comprises variables that are not defined therein. It is unclear how Chemical Formula B-4 is to be interpreted within the claims.
Claim 13 includes the following formula that does not appear to be defined or required in the claims. It is unclear how this formula is to be interpreted within the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
56
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 does not further limit claim 1. Claim 13 requires a “Relational Expression 1” that is not further limiting from the “Relational Expression 4”.
To clarify the issue at hand, Claim 1 requires that the material for the auxiliary electron transport layer and the first host are the same material. Because the HOMO and LUMO are properties of a specific molecular structure, the HOMO and LUMO of the auxiliary electron transport layer and that of the first host are necessarily the same value.
PNG
media_image2.png
106
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
96
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As a result, the underlined portion of relational expression 4 as reproduced above has the exact same meaning as the relational expression 1. Therefore, claim 13 does not further limit claim 1 from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 Eum et al (US 2018/0053900) (Eum) as evidenced by Muruganantham et al (J. Mater. Chem. C., 2025, 13, 2932) (Muruganantham).
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_image4.png
448
578
media_image4.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_image5.png
236
354
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to the difference, Eum teaches, in analogous art, the compound 21 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_image6.png
294
342
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Eum further teaches that the use of this material in an organic EL device imparts excellent emission performance, low driving voltage, high efficiency and long lifespan (Eum [0019]).
In light of the motivation of using compound 21 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 compound 21 as described by Han in order to impart excellent emission performance, low driving voltage, high efficiency and long lifespan and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Tsang teaches the LUMO energy of mCBP is -2.4 eV (Tsang [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. While Eum does not expressly teach the LUMO and HOMO level of compound 21, the instant specification details those inherent properties to be 2.64 and 5.83 eV (Table 1).
Further, Muruganantham teaches the HOMO value of mCBP is 5.82 eV (Muruganantham p. 2927, col 2, para 1).
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 compound 21 corresponds to the first host of the claims, a dopant, the first electron transport layer corresponds to an electron transport auxiliary layer comprising the is compound 21 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 is compound 21 reads on a compound of chemical formula 4 wherein X1, X3, and X5 are each N, X2 and X4 are each CH, L1 is biphenylene, Ar1 is formula S3, A3 is a single bond and A4 is CR19R20 wherein R19 and R20 are each methyl and wherein 3.15 > 2.64 > 2.4 eV.
For Claim 2: Reads on 5.83 > 5.82 eV.
For Claim 3: Reads on 0.01 eV.
For Claim 5: Reads on 0.51 eV.
For Claim 6: Reads on 0.2 eV.
For Claims 9: Reads on formula A-5.
For Claim 10: Reads on formula B-3.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula 4.
For Claim 13: Reads on 2.64 > 2.4 eV.
For Claim 14: Reads on 0.2 eV and 0.01 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 Eum 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 with respect to the claims 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.
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