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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 12-13, and 20 are amended and claim 11 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 11/08/2025. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection and rejections of claim 11 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claim 11 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 11/08/2025.
The objection to the drawings as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 11/08/2025.
The objection to claims 1, 10, 13, and 20 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 11/08/2025.
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-20 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/08/2025.
The rejection of claim 12 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/08/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0185632 A1) in view of Tsukamoto (US 2019/0228686 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/08/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 2, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tsukamoto and Xie (English translation of CN 107266484 A obtained from Global Dossier) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/08/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tsukamoto and Cao (Cao, Xudong, et al. “Simple phenyl bridge between cyano and pyridine units to weaken the electron-withdrawing property for blue-shifted emission in efficient blue TADF OLEDs.” Organic Electronics 57 (2018):247-254.) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 11/08/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-18 of the reply dated 11/08/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-20 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 13-14, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant argues that in both the specification and claims, the first/second host material and the first/second guest material are clearly defined by their chemical structural formulas. Therefore, Applicant argues Applicant has possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner's response –Claim 1 does not further define the first guest material and second guest material by a specific structure or general formula. Thus, as the first guest material and the second guest material are so broadly defined, the first and second guest materials may contain any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds.
The instant specification recites the first guest material may be selected from general formula 2, and the second guest material may be selected from general formula 3 (instant ¶ [0016]-[0017]). The description additionally provides one example of a combination that meets the claimed singlet and triplet energy relationships (see Example 1 in ¶ [0097]-[00103]). However, no structures are provided for the compounds in Example 1 and thus it is unclear if the first guest material and the second guest material are represented by general formulas 2-3.
Thus, the specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what first guest materials and second guest materials that might be usable for each claimed limitation but provides no further description of which combination of first guest materials and second guest materials might meet the required singlet and triplet energy relationships. The limited examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
For this reason, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has not been overcome.
Applicant's argument –On pages 14-15, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues Kim fails to teach the limitation S1(g1)-T1(g1)≤0.1 eV and S1(g1)-T1(g1)≤0.1 eV. Applicant points to Fig. 8 of Kim for support. Applicant further argues that the band gap in the present application is smaller than that in Kim, which is more favorable for realizing the energy transfer from T1 to S1.
Examiner's response –Fig. 8 pertains to a specific embodiment of Kim and is not representative of the energy level bandgaps among all of Kim’s embodiments (¶ [0023]). As Fig. 8 of Kim is not relied upon in the rejection below, Fig. 8 is not relevant to show support that Kim fails to teach the claimed limitations of S1(g1)-T1(g1)≤0.1 eV and S1(g1)-T1(g1)≤0.1 eV.
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Kim teaches a display device including an organic light emitting diode having efficient light emission by including an emitting material layer comprising a first delayed fluorescent dopant (TD1) and a second delayed fluorescent dopant (TD2) (abstract; ¶ [0011] and [0111]). Kim teaches the delayed fluorescent material (i.e., the first delayed fluorescent material and the second delayed fluorescent material) must have an energy level bandgap (S1-T1) equal to or less than about 0.3 eV (¶ [0067]). That is, Kim teaches the first delayed fluorescent (TD1) material and the second delayed fluorescent material (TD2) must satisfy the expressions S1TD1- T1TD1 ≤ 0.3 eV and S1TD2- T1TD2 ≤ 0.3 eV (¶ [0067]).
While the S1-T1 bandgap of equal to or less than 0.1 eV (as required in the instant invention) is smaller than a S1-T1 bandgap of equal to or less than 0.3 eV taught by Kim, there is no evidence to support the criticality of the range being equal to or less than 0.1 eV. As Applicant has not provided evidence that a compound satisfying S1-T1≤0.1 eV has significantly different properties to a compound satisfying S1-T1≤0.3 eV, a prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap or where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the pertinent art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
While a smaller S1-T1 bandgap may be more favorable for realizing the energy transfer from T1 to S1, this does not mean a device of the instant invention obtains unexpected results over Kim. The burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
Applicant's argument –On pages 16-17, Applicant argues Kim fails to teach the limitation S1(h1)≥S1(h2) and T1(h1)≥T1(h2). Applicant points to Fig. 8 of Kim for support. Applicant further argues that Kim cannot achieve the same technical effects of the instant application.
Examiner's response –Similar to the discussion above, Fig. 8 of Kim is not relied upon in the rejection below and thus is not relevant to show support that Kim fails to teach the limitation of S1(h1)≥S1(h2) and T1(h1)≥T1(h2).
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Kim teaches the device of Example 2 which includes a first emitting material layer comprising a first host material (h1) and a second emitting material layer comprising a second host material (h2), wherein the first host material and the second host material are the same compound. As the host materials are the same in both the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer, the compounds would necessarily have the same S1 and T1 energy levels. Accordingly, Kim teaches the limitation of S1(h1)=S1(h2) and T1(h1)=T1(h2).
Additionally, with respect to Kim not achieving the same technical effects of the instant application, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicant's argument –On page 17, Applicant argues the cited references fail to teach wherein the first light emitting layer can provide efficiency Forster energy transfer to the second light emitting layer. Applicant suggests Forster energy transfer is related to the limitation of “at least 40% of an area in a region covered under an emission spectrum of the first light-emitting layer overlaps with the area in the region covered under an absorption spectrum of the second light-emitting layer”.
Examiner's response –The first light emitting layer providing efficiency Forster energy transfer to the second light emitting layer is not a limitation required by any of claims 1-10 and 12-20 and thus it is not required for the cited references to teach this.
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Tsukamoto provides motivation to modify the device of Kim such that there is a significant overlapping portion (greater than 50%) between the emission spectrum of the luminescent material (i.e., first delayed fluorescent material) provided in the first light emitting layer and the absorption spectrum of the luminescent material (i.e., second delayed fluorescent material) provided in the second light emitting layer. Accordingly, the cited references teach the limitation wherein “at least 40% of an area in a region covered under an emission spectrum of the first light-emitting layer overlaps with the area in the region covered under an absorption spectrum of the second light-emitting layer”.
Applicant's argument –On pages 17-18, Applicant argues the cited references fail to teach the claims as amended which require the first host material and the second host material to be selected from general formula 1 wherein at least one among AR1 and all R1s is selected from terphenylene R(b) or substituted terphenylene R(b).
Examiner's response –As discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the newly cited reference Ryu (English translation of WO 2011081423 A2 obtained from Global Dossier) provides motivation to modify the device of Kim to include host compounds of the claimed general formula 1 wherein at least one among AR1 and all R1s is selected from terphenylene R(b) or substituted terphenylene R(b). Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 12-13 include structures that are blurry.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 12-20 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.
Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 require a first light-emitting layer comprising a first host material and a first guest material and a second light-emitting layer comprising a second host material and a second guest material, wherein the first host (h1), second host (h2), first guest material (g1), and second guest material (g2) satisfy the following singlet and triplet energy relationships:
S1(h1)>S1(g1), T1(h1)>T1(g1), S1(g1)-T1(g1) ≤ 0.1 eV;
S1(h2)>S1(g2), T1(h2)>T1(g2), S1(g2)-T1(g2) ≤ 0.1 eV; and
S1(h1)≥S1(h2)>S1(g1)>S1(g2), T1(h1)≥T1(h2)>T1(g1)>T1(g2).
Additionally, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10 and 11-20 require the first host material and the second host material to be selected from materials having the general formula I.
The instant specification recites the first host material and the second host material may be selected from general formula 1, the first guest material may be selected from general formula 2, and the second guest material may be selected from general formula 3 (instant ¶ [0016]-[0017]). The description additionally provides one example of a combination that meets the above singlet and triplet energy relationships (see Example 1 in ¶ [0097]-[00103]). However, no structures are provided for the compounds in Example 1 and thus it is unclear if the first and second host materials, the first guest material, and the second guest material are represented by general formulas 1-3. Thus, the specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what first guest materials and second guest materials that might be usable for each claimed limitation but provides no further description of which combination of first guest materials and second guest materials might meet the required singlet and triplet energy relationships. The limited examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii).
Additionally, the newly amended claim 12 recites that X1 in general formula 2 is selected from C with a substituent or N. Every chemical group and atom falls within the scope of “a substituent” given that it is so broadly defined. However, the instant specification only recites X1 is selected from C or N (instant ¶ [0017] and [0088]). The instant specification does not recite C of X1 may have a substituent, nor does the instant specification provide examples of compounds represented by general formula 2 wherein X1 is C with a substituent. Accordingly, the instant specification does not provide support for wherein X1 is selected from C with a substituent. For this reason, claim 12 is considered to have new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-10, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0185632 A1) in view of Ryu (English translation of WO 2011081423 A2 obtained from Global Dossier) and Tsukamoto (US 2019/0228686 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-10, 14, and 17-20, Kim teaches a display device including an organic light emitting diode having efficient light emission by including an emitting material layer comprising a host (H), a first delayed fluorescent dopant (TD1), and a second delayed fluorescent dopant (TD2), wherein the singlet (S1) and triplet (T1) energy level relationships of Equations (a) to (d) and the HOMO and LUMO energy relationships of Equations (1), (3), (5), and (7) are satisfied (abstract; ¶ [0011] and [0111]):
S1TD1 > S1TD2;
T1TD1 > T1TD2;
S1H > S1TD1 and S1H > S1TD2; and
T1H > T1TD1 and T1H > T1TD2.
Additionally, the first and second delayed fluorescent dopants satisfy the following: S1TD1- T1TD1 ≤ 0.3 eV and S1TD2- T1TD2 ≤ 0.3 eV (¶ [0067]).
An example of such a device is shown in Example 2 (abstract; ¶ [0234]). Example 2 includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a first emitting material layer including a host (mCBP) and a first delayed fluorescent (TADF) dopant (A-1) in a weight ratio of 80:20 (claim 4), a second emitting material layer of the host (mCBP) and a second delayed fluorescent (TADF) dopant (B-1) in a weight ratio of 80:20 (claim 5), a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0231]-[0234]).
The host (mCBP) of the first emitting material layer and the second emitting material layer fails to read on the claimed general formula 1. However, Kim teaches the host is not limited to specific materials (¶ [0113]).
Ryu teaches an organic EL device having improved luminous efficiency, luminance, thermal stability, driving voltage, and lifespan by including a triphenylene-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as a host material in a light emitting layer (¶ [10]-[13] and [119]). Examples of compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 include compound A-1 (¶ [54]).
Therefore, in the device of Kim’s Example 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute mCBP in each of the first emitting material layer and the second emitting material layer with a compound of Ryu’s Chemical Formula 1, based on the teaching of Ryu, and to further select the first delayed fluorescent dopant and the second delayed fluorescent dopant such that each of Kim’s Equations (a) to (d), Equations (1), (3), (5), and (7), and expressions S1TD1- T1TD1 ≤ 0.3 eV and S1TD2- T1TD2 ≤ 0.3 eV are satisfied. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved luminous efficiency, luminance, thermal stability, driving voltage, and lifespan, as taught by Ryu.
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Ryu’s compound A-1, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds resented by Chemical Formula 1 and taught by Ryu, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the host in the first emitting material layer and the second emitting material layer of the device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Ryu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Ryu’s Chemical Formula 1 having the benefits taught by Ryu in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As the modified Example 2 satisfies Kim’s Equations (a) to (d), the following claimed relationships are satisfied, wherein compound A-1 reads on the claimed h1 and h2, the first delayed fluorescent dopant reads on the claimed g1, and the second delayed fluorescent dopant reads on the claimed g2:
S1(h1)>S1(g1), T1(h1)>T1(g1);
S1(h2)>S1(g2), T1(h2)>T1(g2),
S1(h1)≥S1(h2)>S1(g1)>S1(g2), T1(h1)≥T1(h2)>T1(g1)>T1(g2).
Additionally, as the expressions S1TD1- T1TD1 ≤ 0.3 eV and S1TD2- T1TD2 ≤ 0.3 eV are satisfied, the claimed relationships of S1(g2)-T1(g2)≤0.1eV and S1(g1)-T1(g1)≤0.1eV are satisfied. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the pertinent art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
The structure of compound A-1 is reproduced below in comparison to the general formula 1 (see Ryu, ¶ [54]).
A-1:
PNG
media_image1.png
113
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image2.png
209
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound A-1 reads on the claimed general formula 1 wherein:
one L is an unsubstituted C6 arylene group, and four Ls are each a single bond;
AR1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; and
four R1 are each hydrogen and one R1 is terphenylene R(b).
Kim in view of Ryu are silent as to compound A-1 having a hole mobility higher than an electron mobility.
The instant specification recites that the first host material has a hole mobility higher than an electron mobility and the second host material has a hole mobility higher than an electron mobility (instant ¶ [0031]). Additionally, the instant specification teaches the first host material and the second host material may be selected from materials having the instant general formula 1 wherein at least one among AR1 and all R1s may be selected from terphenylene R(b) (instant ¶ [0079]). Since Ryu teaches compound A-1, which is a compound that reads on the instant general formula 1 wherein at least one among AR1 and all R1s is selected from terphenylene R(b) (as described above), compound A-1 having a hole mobility higher than an electron mobility is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Kim in view of Ryu is silent as to the limitation wherein at least 40% of an area in a region covered under an emission spectrum of the first light-emitting layer overlaps with the area in the region covered under an absorption spectrum of the second light-emitting layer.
Tsukamoto teaches in the case where an organic EL element includes a light-emitting layer unit with a layered structure, it is preferable that a part of the emission spectrum of the luminescent material provided in the first light emitting layer overlap a part of the absorption spectrum of the luminescent material provided in the second light emitting layer (¶ [0060] and [0112]). Tsukamoto teaches examples in Figs. 7 and 8 in which there is a significant overlapping portion (greater than 50%) between the emission spectrum of the luminescent material provided in the first light emitting layer and the absorption spectrum of the luminescent material provided in the second light emitting layer. This allows for energy transfer between the luminescent materials to occur more easily (¶ [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to significantly overlap the emission spectrum of the first light-emitting layer with the absorption spectrum of the second light-emitting layer, based on the teaching of Tsukamoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for energy transfer between luminescent materials to occur more easily, as taught by Tsukamoto.
Per claims 8-9, the first emitting material layer has a thickness of 150 Å (15 nm) and the second emitting material layer has a thickness of 100 Å (10 nm) (see Kim, ¶ [0234]).
Per claims 14 and 17-18, the organic light emitting diode is formed on a substrate (base) (see Kim, ¶ [0231]).
Per claim 19, although the instant claim is drawn to a display equipment, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is the display substrate of claim 14. Claim 19 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the display substrate. Kim in view of Ryu and Tsukamoto teach the display substrate comprising the organic light emitting device according to claim 14, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the display substrate according to Kim in view of Ryu and Tsukamoto may be considered a display equipment.
Claims 2, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0185632 A1) in view of Ryu (English translation of WO 2011081423 A2 obtained from Global Dossier) and Tsukamoto (US 2019/0228686 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie (English translation of CN 107266484 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 15, Kim in view of Ryu and Tsukamoto teach the organic light emitting device including a second delayed fluorescent dopant in the second light emitting material layer as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim is silent as to the FWHM of the second delayed fluorescent dopant, and fails to teach a compound that reads on the claimed general formula 3. However, Kim teaches the second delayed fluorescent dopant may be an organic compound having a plurality of fused hetero aromatic moieties and a narrow FWHM (¶ [0105]).
Additionally, as discussed above, the device must satisfy Equations (a) to (d), (1), (3), (5), and (7), and S1TD1- T1TD1 ≤ 0.3 eV and S1TD2- T1TD2 ≤ 0.3 eV (¶ [0067]).
Xie teaches a TADF with a smaller FWHM provides an OLED with purer color and improved luminous efficiency (middle of pg. 1). TADF compounds which provide a small FWHM are represented by general formula I, and examples thereof include compound 1 (bottom of pg. 1 to beginning of pg. 2; structure on pg. 6). Compound 1 has a singlet energy of 2.70 eV, a triplet energy of 2.56 eV, and thus a S1-T1 of 0.14 eV (see Table 1 on pg. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a compound of Xie’s general formula 1 as the second delayed fluorescent dopant, based on the teaching of Xie, and to further select the first delayed fluorescent dopant such that Kim’s Equations (a) to (d), (1), (3), (5), and (7) and S1TD1- T1TD1 ≤ 0.3 eV are satisfied, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound with a small FWHM and thereby provide an OLED with purer color and improved luminous efficiency, as taught by Xie.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Xie’s compound 1, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Xie’s general formula I, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the TADF dopant in the second light emitting material layer of the device of Kim in view of Ryu, Tsukamoto, and Xie and possessing the benefits taught by Xie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Xie’s general formula I having the benefits taught by Xie in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Compound 1 has a singlet energy of 2.70 eV, a triplet energy of 2.56 eV, and thus a S1-T1 of 0.14 eV (see Table 1 on pg. 9). Accordingly, the claimed singlet-triplet energy relationships of claim 1 are met. Additionally, compound 1 has a FWHM of 24 nm (see Table 2 on pg. 10) (claim 2).
Compound 1 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed general formula 3 (claim 13).
compound 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
228
203
media_image3.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image4.png
244
249
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 reads on the claimed general formula 3 wherein:
Each R4 is hydrogen;
Each X4 is N-R5; and
Each R5 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0185632 A1) in view of Ryu (English translation of WO 2011081423 A2 obtained from Global Dossier) and Tsukamoto (US 2019/0228686 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ihn (US 2019/0181353 A1)
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Kim in view of Ryu and Tsukamoto teach the organic light emitting device including the first delayed fluorescent dopant and the second delayed fluorescent dopant as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Ryu and Tsukamoto are silent as to the amount of energy of light emitted by the first delayed fluorescent dopant.
Ihn teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer including an auxiliary dopant, a fluorescent dopant, and a host, wherein the device satisfies Equation 2 (ES1(FD) – ES1(AD) < 0 eV), wherein ES1(FD) is a singlet energy (eV) of a fluorescent dopant and ES1(AD) is a singlet energy (eV) of an auxiliary dopant (abstract; ¶ [0257]-[0260]). When Equation 2 is satisfied, a fluorescence spectrum having excellent color purity based on the fluorescent dopant may be obtained and a device having high efficiency and improved durability may be obtained (¶ [0261]). Additionally, when Equation 2 is satisfied, a ratio of a fluorescence component (for example, a TADF component) emitted from the auxiliary dopant to a total fluorescence component emitted from the emission layer may be about 50% or less to about 20% or less (¶ [0262]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further select the first delayed fluorescent dopant and the second delayed fluorescent dopant such that they satisfy wherein ES1(first delayed fluorescent dopant) - ES1(second delayed fluorescent dopant) < 0 eV, based on the teaching of Ihn. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a fluorescence spectrum having excellent color purity and a device with high efficiency and improved durability, as taught by Ihn.
Accordingly, as the device of Kim in view of Ryu, Tsukamoto, and Ihn satisfies Ihn’s Equation 2, a ratio of a fluorescence component (i.e., light) emitted from the first delayed fluorescent dopant to a total fluorescence component emitted from the emission layer is about 50% or less to about 20% or less. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Per claim 16, the organic light emitting diode is formed on a substrate (base) (see Kim, ¶ [0231]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0185632 A1) in view of Ryu (English translation of WO 2011081423 A2 obtained from Global Dossier) and Tsukamoto (US 2019/0228686 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao (Cao, Xudong, et al. "Simple phenyl bridge between cyano and pyridine units to weaken the electron-withdrawing property for blue-shifted emission in efficient blue TADF OLEDs." Organic Electronics 57 (2018): 247-254.)
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Ryu and Tsukamoto teach the organic light emitting device including a first delayed fluorescent dopant in the first light emitting material layer as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim fails to teach a first delayed fluorescent dopant that reads on the claimed general formula 2. However, Kim teaches the first delayed fluorescent dopant may have an electron acceptor moiety and an electron donor moiety that are connected via a proper linker (¶ [0093]).
Additionally, as discussed above, the device must satisfy Equations (a) to (d), (1), (3), (5), and (7), and S1TD1- T1TD1 ≤ 0.3 eV and S1TD2- T1TD2 ≤ 0.3 eV (¶ [0067]).
Cao teaches 4CzCNPhPy as an efficient donor-acceptor sky-blue TADF emitter for OLEDs (abstract; Scheme 1; bottom of pg. 249).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cao’s 4CzCNPhPy as the first delayed fluorescent dopant, based on the teaching of Cao, and to further select the second delayed fluorescent dopant such that Kim’s Equations (a) to (d), (1), (3), (5), and (7), and S1TD2- T1TD2 ≤ 0.3 eV are satisfied, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a material that is an efficient donor-acceptor sky-blue TADF emitter, as taught by Cao.
4CzCNPhPy has a singlet energy level of 2.61 eV and a triplet energy level of 2.57 eV (last paragraph of pg. 249), and thus a S1-T1 of 0.04 eV. Accordingly, the claimed singlet-triplet energy relationships of claim 1 are met.
4CzCNPhPy is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed general formula 2.
4CzCNPhPy:
PNG
media_image5.png
194
172
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image6.png
145
140
media_image6.png
Greyscale
4CzCNPhPy reads on the claimed general formula 2 wherein:
X1 is C, which is substituted with carbazole;
3 R2 groups are each a carbazole of group A
PNG
media_image7.png
114
165
media_image7.png
Greyscale
;
1 R2 group is a cyano-phenyl of group B
PNG
media_image8.png
144
139
media_image8.png
Greyscale
; and
Each R3 is hydrogen.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786