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
The amendment of 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 16-30 are pending.
Claims 16 and 28 have been amended.
The amendments of claims 16 and 28 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 16-22, 24, and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0009894 A1) in view of Cha et al. (KR 2019/0097715 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent, hereafter Cha),
the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0009894 A1) in view of Cha et al. (KR 2019/0097715 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 16-22, 24, and 27-30 above, further in view of Xia et al. (US 2010/0244004 A1), and
the rejections of claims 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0009894 A1) in view of Cha et al. (KR 2019/0097715 A, the original document is referred to for figures and tables and the English translation is referred to for the remainder body of the patent) as applied to claims 16-22, 24, and 27-30 above, further in view of Hwang et al. (“Unique Belt Plane Source Evaporation Techniques for the Mass Production of 2250ppi AMOLED and 77” QD OLED TV” SID 2019 Digest, 2019, 67-3, page 949-952) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 12-14 of the reply filed 10/14/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 16-22, 24, and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0009894 A1, hereafter Ha) in view of Dong et al. (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2012, vol. 14, page 14224-14228, hereafter Dong) and Parham et al. (US 2017/0186965 A1, hereafter Parham), the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view of Dong, Parham, and Xia et al. (US 2010/0244004 A1, hereafter Xia), and the rejections of claims 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view of Dong, Parham, and Hwang et al. (SID 2019 Digest, 2019, 67-3, page 949-952, hereafter Hwang) set forth in the Office Action of 07/15/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that in formula 2-1 the preferred substituent for R21 as disclosed in paragraph [0088], are limited to phenyl, biphenylyl, terphenylyl, and a specific substituent not including spirobifluorene (page 14, par. 1).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
In response, the Examiner points to MPEP 2123 (I) and (II).
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.")
Furthermore, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, Ha teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising Compound 2-1 of Ha as the light emitting layer material. The only difference between the Compound 2-1 of Ha and the claimed compound is the triphenylene group at the position corresponding to R21 of Formula 2-1 of Ha.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ha teaches that R21 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl ([0029]). Ha further teaches that the aryl group can be a fluorenyl group ([0056]) and exemplifies a spirofluorenyl group
PNG
media_image2.png
146
157
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the fluorenyl group ([0057]).
Dong and Parham teaches the benefits of spirofluorene.
Dong teaches that spirofluorene is widely used in optoelectronics for its high thermal stability as a bulky group (page 14224, last paragraph).
Parham discloses a compound (Formula (1) in [0008]) used as the host material of a phosphorescent organic electroluminescent device ([0006]) and exemplifies a spirofluorene compound ([0095], the 2nd compound on page 45, hereafter Compound p45-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
286
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound p45-2 of Parham has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1).
Parham teaches the compound of Parham provides a long lifetime, good efficiency, and low operating voltage for a phosphorescent organic electroluminescent device ([0006]).
The difference between the Compound 2-1 of Ha and the Compound p45-2 of Parham is the spirofluorene group at the position corresponding to R21 of Formula 2-1 of Ha. An ordinary skill in the art would have acknowledged that the Compound 2-1 of Ha would achieve the benefits taught by Parham if the triphenylene group is substituted by spirofluorene group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2-1 of Ha by substituting the triphenylenyl group with a spirofluorenyl group such that the resultant compound has the identical structure as Compound p45-2 of Parham, as taught by Ha, Dong, and Parham.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues that there is no basis in Dong for a skilled artisan to expect that results (page 14, par. 1). Applicant further argues that Parham provides a broad generic formula but lacks any motivation to select the specific host material (page 14, last paragraph).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
As outlined above, the only deficiency of the Compound 2-1 of Ha is the spirofluorene group at the position corresponding to R21 of Formula 2-1 of Ha; however, Ha does teach that R21 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl ([0029]). Ha further teaches that the aryl group can be a fluorenyl group ([0056]) and exemplifies a spirofluorenyl group
PNG
media_image2.png
146
157
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the fluorenyl group ([0057]). The only knowledge that an ordinary skill in the art would rely upon from Dong is advantage of a spirofluorene group.
Dong teaches that spirofluorene is widely used in optoelectronics for its high thermal stability as a bulky group (page 14224, last paragraph).
An ordinary skill in the art would expect those advantage in the resultant compound (i.e. compounds containing triazine as well as spirofluorene) because the high thermal stability stems from the spirofluorene moiety itself, and the spirofluorene is bulkier than triphenylene.
For the arguments with respect to Parham, as outlined above, Ha teaches spirofluorene at the position corresponding to R21 of Formula 2-1 of Ha. The only knowledge that an ordinary skill in the art would rely upon from Parham is advantage of a spirofluorene group.
Parham teaches the compound of Parham provides a long lifetime, good efficiency, and low operating voltage for a phosphorescent organic electroluminescent device ([0006]), and the compound of Parham has structure of Formula (1) of Parham ([0008]). Parham exemplifies a spirofluorene compound ([0095], the 2nd compound on page 45, hereafter Compound p45-2). The only difference between the Compound 2-1 of Ha and the Compound p45-2 of Parham is the spirofluorene group at the position corresponding to R21 of Formula 2-1 of Ha. Thus, an ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the triphenylene group of the Compound 2-1 of Ha with a spirofluorene group such that the resultant compound has the identical structure as Compound p45-2 of Parham to achieve the advantages that Parham taught.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues that the inventive combinations exhibit unexpected improvements in device lifetime (page 15-16).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
Applicant argues that the inventive OLED device (Ex1-Ex24) provides improvement in lifetime as compared to the comparative devices (C1-C6). However, it is unclear the data supports unexpected results for non-obviousness of the cited rejections for at least the following reasons.
First, none of the comparative devices is the closest prior art.
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). See MPEP 716.02(e).
The organic electroluminescent device of Ha comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer, a light emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the hole control layer includes Formula 1, the light emitting layer can include Formula 2-1 and Formula 3 ([0009]-[0040]). That is, the closest prior art requires the hole control layer to include a compound having structure of Formula 1 of Ha. All the OLED devices in Applicant’s test has HATCN in HIL, SpMA1 in HTL, and SpMA2 in EBL. None of them has structure of the Formula 1 of Ha. Thus, the comparison was not made to the closest prior art.
Second, the result is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
With respect to the commensurate in scope with claimed invention, the Examiner points out MPEP 716.02(d), as recited below.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
The superior lifetime of the inventive OLED devices is only demonstrated in a particular combinations of structure/materials of an OLED device. For example, the inventive device has structure of a first electrode, HIL (HATCN), HTL (SpMA1), EBL (SpMA2), EML, HBL (ST2), ETL (ST2:LiQ), EIL (LiQ), and a second electrode. The instant claims do not require HATCN as the HIL material, SpMA1 as the HTL material, SpMA2 as EBL material, ST2 as the HBL material, ST2:LiQ as the ETL material, and LiQ as the EIL material. The closest prior art do not require such combination of materials. The improvements in lifetime may only be shown in a particular combination of structure and material in each layer, which is not claimed. Thus, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Third, the rejection is made based on the teaching and suggestion of Dong and Parham.
Dong teaches that spirofluorene is widely used in optoelectronics for its high thermal stability as a bulky group (page 14224, last paragraph). Parham teaches the compound of Parham provides a long lifetime, good efficiency, and low operating voltage for a phosphorescent organic electroluminescent device ([0006]).
The fact that applicant has recognized another advantage (i.e. long lifetime of the OLED device) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art (i.e. high thermal stability, a long lifetime, good efficiency, and low operating voltage) cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Furthermore, Parham teaches long lifetime of the OLED device comprising the Compound p45-2 as the host material. Thus, the long lifetime is not unexpected.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments see page 15 of the reply filed 10/14/2025 regarding the rejections of claims 16-22, 24, and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0009894 A1) in view of Cha et al. (KR 2019/0097715 A, hereafter Cha), the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view of Cha and Xia, and the rejections of claims 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha in view of Cha and Hwang set forth in the Office Action of 07/15/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Cha does not disclose the claimed spirofluorene compounds (page 15, par. 1).
The cited rejections refer to the Compound p30-1 of Cha as the host (see the section 91 of the last Office Action).
The amended claim 1 requires o and p are each 0. On the other hand the Compound p30-1 of Cha requires o and p are non-zero. Therefore, the Compound p30-1 of Cha does not read on the limitation of the host material 1 of Formula (1) of the amended claims. The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 16-22, 24, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0009894 A1, hereafter Ha) in view of Dong et al. (“New dibenzofuran/spirobifluorene hybrids as thermally stable host materials for efficient phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes with low efficiency roll-off”, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2012, vol. 14, page 14224-14228, hereafter Dong) and Parham et al. (US 2017/0186965 A1, hereafter Parham).
Regarding claims 16-22, 24, and 28-29, Ha discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer, a light emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the hole control layer includes Formula 1, the light emitting layer can include Formula 2-1 and Formula 3 ([0009]-[0040]).
Ha exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer (Compound 1-1), a light emitting layer (Compound 2-1 as a host, Compound 3-1 as a host, and Compound GD-1 as a phosphorescent emitter as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is produced by a gas phase deposition process (“co-evaporation”) (Example 1, in [0219]-[0221], Table 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
327
672
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Compound 3-1 does not have an indolocarbazole moiety (i.e. the moiety represented by Applicant’s Formula (2) of the instant claim 16); however, Ha does teach a compound containing an indolocarbazole moiety ([0102], the first compound on page 228, hereafter Compound p228-1).
The Compound p228-1 of Ha has identical structure as Applicant’s Formulas (2) and (3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Ha by substituting the Compound 3-1 with Compound p228-1, as taught by Ha.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic electroluminescent device of Ha comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer (Compound 1-1 of Ha), a light emitting layer (Compound 2-1 of Ha as a host, Compound p228-1 of Ha as a host, and Compound GD-1 of Ha as a phosphorescent emitter as a dopant), and a cathode.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 2-1 of Ha has a triphenylene group at the position corresponding to R21 of the Formula 2-1 of Ha, which does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula (1) of the instant claims; however, Ha does teach that R21 can be a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl ([0029]). Ha teaches that a fluorenyl group can be the aryl group of the disclosure of Ha ([0056]). Ha exemplifies a spirofluorenyl group
PNG
media_image2.png
146
157
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the fluorenyl group.
Dong teaches that spirofluorene is widely used in optoelectronics for its high thermal stability as a bulky group (page 14224, last paragraph).
Parham discloses a compound (Formula (1) in [0008]) used as the host material of a phosphorescent organic electroluminescent device ([0006]) and exemplifies a spirofluorene compound ([0095], the 2nd compound on page 45, hereafter Compound p45-2).
PNG
media_image3.png
286
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Compound p45-2 of Parham has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1).
Parham teaches the compound of Parham provides a long lifetime, good efficiency, and low operating voltage for a phosphorescent organic electroluminescent device ([0006]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 2-1 of Ha of the Modified organic electroluminescent device of Ha by substituting the triphenylenyl group with a spirofluorenyl group such that the resultant compound has the identical structure as Compound p45-2 of Parham, as taught by Ha, Dong, and Parham.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high thermal stability as a bulky group based on the teaching of Dong and a long lifetime, good efficiency, and low operating voltage for a phosphorescent organic electroluminescent device based on the teaching of Parham.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution the triphenylenyl group with spirofluorene at the position corresponding to R21 of Formula 2-1 of Ha would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer (Compound 1-1 of Ha), a light emitting layer (Compound p45-2 of Parham as a host, Compound p228-1 of Ha as a host, and Compound GD-1 of Ha as a phosphorescent emitter as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the organic electroluminescent device is an OLED; the light emitting layer is produced by a gas phase deposition process; and the light emitting layer materials are a mixture.
Regarding claims 27 and 30, the Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham reads on all the features of claims 24 and 28 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer (Compound 1-1 of Ha), a light emitting layer (Compound p45-2 of Parham as a host, Compound p228-1 of Ha as a host, and Compound GD-1 of Ha as a phosphorescent emitter as a dopant), and a cathode.
The device is produced by a gas phase deposition process; however, Ha does teach that the device can be produced by a solution process such as a spin coating process ([0115]).
Parham teaches a solution process wherein the solution process uses a formulation comprising the compounds to coat and a solvent ([0097]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham by substituting the process to produce the light emitting layer with a solution process which uses a formulation comprising the light emitting layer materials (the mixture of the host and dopant materials) and a solvent, as taught by Ha and Parham.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the device fabrication processes would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a solution process to produce the light emitting layer of the Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham, wherein the solution process uses a formulation comprising the light emitting layer materials (the mixture of the host and dopant materials) and a solvent.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0009894 A1) in view of Dong et al. (“New dibenzofuran/spirobifluorene hybrids as thermally stable host materials for efficient phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes with low efficiency roll-off”, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2012, vol. 14, page 14224-14228) and Parham et al. (US 2017/0186965 A1) as applied to claims 16-22, 24, and 27-30 above, further in view of Xia et al. (US 2010/0244004 A1, hereafter Xia).
Regarding claim 23, the Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham reads on all the features of claim 16 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer (Compound 1-1 of Ha), a light emitting layer (Compound p45-2 of Parham as a host, Compound p228-1 of Ha as a host, and Compound GD-1 of Ha as a phosphorescent emitter as a dopant), and a cathode.
The Compound GD-1 does not reads on the limitation of Formula (5); however, Ha does teach that a phosphorescent emitter including a metal complex can be used in the device of Ha ([0082], [0107]).
Xia discloses a phosphorescent Ir complex used as the emitter of an organic electroluminescent device ([0016]) and exemplifies Compound 1 ([0048], Table 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
270
488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Xia teaches that the Ir complex of Xia provides tunability of the emission color, relatively low sublimation temperature, and improved stability, efficiency, and narrow linewidth ([0045]-[0047]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham by substituting the phosphorescent emitter with Compound 1 of Xia, as taught by Ha and Xia.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide tunability of the emission color, relatively low sublimation temperature, and improved stability, efficiency, and narrow linewidth, based on the teaching of Xia.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution Ir complexes used as the phosphorescent emitter in the device of Ha would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong, Parham, and Xia comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer (Compound 1-1 of Ha), a light emitting layer (Compound p45-2 of Parham as a host, Compound p228-1 of Ha as a host, and Compound 1 of Xia as a phosphorescent emitter as a dopant), and a cathode.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2021/0009894 A1) in view of Dong et al. (“New dibenzofuran/spirobifluorene hybrids as thermally stable host materials for efficient phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes with low efficiency roll-off”, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2012, vol. 14, page 14224-14228) and Parham et al. (US 2017/0186965 A1) as applied to claims 16-22, 24, and 27-30 above, further in view of Hwang et al. (“Unique Belt Plane Source Evaporation Techniques for the Mass Production of 2250ppi AMOLED and 77” QD OLED TV” SID 2019 Digest, 2019, 67-3, page 949-952, hereafter Hwang).
Regarding claims 25-26, the Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham reads on all the features of claim 24 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole control layer (Compound 1-1 of Ha), a light emitting layer (Compound p45-2 of Parham as a host, Compound p228-1 of Ha as a host, and Compound GD-1 of Ha as a phosphorescent emitter as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the light emitting layer is produced by a gas phase deposition process.
Ha does not disclose a specific organic electroluminescent device formed by a gas phase deposition source comprising the Compound p45-2 of Parham and the Compound p228-1 of Ha.
Hwang discloses a gas phase deposition process to produce the organic layer of an organic electroluminescent device (plane source evaporation on page 950 and Figs. 5 and 8). Hwang teaches that a multiple sources (1D, 1H, and 2D in Fig. 8) are used to form a mixed material layer first deposited on a metal plate; after that, the mixed material layer on the metal plate is re-evaporated onto the target (Figs. 5 and 8).
Hwang teaches the plane source evaporation process provides higher material utilization.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham by substituting the process to produce the light emitting layer with a plane source evaporation process as taught by Ha and Hwang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide higher material utilization.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of known gas phase deposition processes would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a gas phase deposition process (i.e. plane source evaporation process) to produce the light emitting layer of the Organic electroluminescent device of Ha as modified by Dong and Parham, wherein the process uses three material sources to deposit successively or simultaneously the host and dopant materials, meeting all the limitations of claim 25.
In the gas phase deposition process, the pre-deposited mixed material on the metal plate is re-evaporated and deposited to the target, wherein the second deposition occurs from the gas phase as a mixture successively or simultaneously with the emitter material, meeting all the limitations of claim 26.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786