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
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 23 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. Formula G1 is TFSI, a ligand specifically not allowed in the claim 1 and therefore the claim 23 comprises subject matter outside of the scope of 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, 4-10, 12-15, 17, 20-28, 28-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummert et al (US 2018/0240995) (Hummert).
In reference to claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 20-25, 29 and 31, Hummert teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer and a cathode (Hummert [0011]) wherein the hole injection layer includes an arylamine compound doped with a charge neutral metal amide compound (Hummert [0031]) wherein the charge neutral metal compound is, for example, compound D17 as shown below (Hummert [0384]) and the arylamine compound is a compound T-10 as shown below that has a HOMO energy level of -5.7 eV that is more negative than the HOMO of the instant compound T-9 (also T-9 in the prior art, HOMO= -5.33 eV) (Hummert Table 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
236
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Hummert does not disclose a discrete example of a device comprising this exact configuration, Hummert teaches them as alternatives for each of the host and dopant of the hole injection layer. In the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have selected the host and dopant of the hole injection layer from the preferred options as described by Hummert with the expectation of providing a similarly functional device.
For Claim 1: Reads on a device with the claimed structure wherein T-10 is the hole transport compound comprising CH and N atoms covalently bonded, with a MW between 400 and 2000 g/mol and a HOMO that is further from vacuum than the material recited, Mg(TFSI)2 is a metal complex as claimed wherein M is Mg, n is 2, and L is a ligand comprising at least two carbons and the hole injection layer is arranged adjacent to the anode layer.
For Claim 4: Reads on non-emissive.
For Claim 6: Reads on a MW between 450 and 1500 g/mol.
For Claim 8: Reads on MW of 778.7 g/mol.
For Claim 9: Reads on L comprises at least 4 oxygen atoms.
For Claim 10: Reads on non-emissive.
For Claim 12-14: Reads on wherein the compound comprises 3 carbazoles.
For Claim 15: Reads on wherein the compound comprises a N heteroatom.
For Claim 17: Reads on a compound comprising 12 aromatic rings.
For Claim 20: Reads on wherein n is 2.
For Claim 21: Reads on IIa.
For Claim 22: Reads on the substituent is F.
For Claim 23: Reads on G26.
For Claim 24-25: The emission layer reads on a photoactive layer.
For Claim 29: The hole transport layer reads on the hole transport layer.
For Claim 31: Reads on a light emitting device.
In reference to claim 7, Hummert teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While the prior art is silent to the Allen electronegativity value of Mg (1.3), this is an inherent property of the metal. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
In reference to claims 26 and 28, Hummert teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Hummert does not state that the hole injection layer comprises sub-layers as claimed, the device of Hummert meets all of the limitations of the claims anyway. The sub-layers are not required to have different compositions from one another and therefore a single layer meets the limitations of multiple sublayers that have the same composition.
Claims 1-2, 4-26, 27-29 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummert et al as evidenced by Baldo and Forrest (Physical Review B, Vol. 62, 16).
In reference to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-25, 29 and 31, Hummert teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer and a cathode (Hummert [0011]) wherein the hole injection layer includes an arylamine compound doped with a charge neutral metal amide compound (Hummert [0031]) wherein the charge neutral metal compound is, for example, compound D17 as shown below (Hummert [0384]) and the arylamine compound is a compound of formula VIIa as shown below (Hummert [0406]),
PNG
media_image3.png
114
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For example, wherein in the formula q is 1, r is 1, R9 is a single bond, Ar1 and Ar2 are each phenyl, Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl that are fused to form a ring, Ar3 and Ar4 are each phenyl that are fused to form a carbazole ring, and Ar5 and Ar6 are each phenyl that are fused to form a carbazole ring (Hummert [0415]; [0431]; [0432]).
Hummert discloses the compound of formula VIIa that encompasses the presently claimed hole transport compound, including wherein in the formula q is 1, r is 1, R9 is a single bond, Ar1 and Ar2 are each phenyl, Ar3 and Ar4 are phenyl that are fused to form a ring, Ar3 and Ar4 are each phenyl that are fused to form a carbazole ring, and Ar5 and Ar6 are each phenyl that are fused to form a carbazole ring. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Hummert are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula VIIa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula VIIa to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Hummert and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Hummert does not expressly state that the HOMO energy level of this compound has the claimed HOMO, it does provide that the material should have a HOMO level that proves a good hole injection performance into the emission layer (Hummert [0421]). However, such a selection of preferred substituents from the formula VIIa provides the exceptionally well-known hole injection or hole transporting material commonly known as CBP. Baldo provides evidence that this material CBP has a HOMO energy level of -6.4 as determined experimentally from the ionization potential and therefore meets the claimed energy level range (Baldo p 10961 col 1 para 2; Fig 2).
For Claim 1: Reads on a device with the claimed structure wherein T-10 is the hole transport compound comprising CH and N atoms covalently bonded, with a MW between 400 and 2000 g/mol and a HOMO that is further from vacuum than the material recited, Mg(TFSI)2 is a metal complex as claimed wherein M is Mg, n is 2, and L is a ligand comprising at least two carbons and the hole injection layer is arranged adjacent to the anode layer.
For Claim 2: Reads on wherein k is 1, r is 1, m is 0, p is 1 and q is 0, Ar1 is carbazole, Ar4 is phenyl Ar3 is phenyl, Ar6 is carbazole.
For Claim 4: Reads on non-emissive.
For Claim 5: Reads on wherein k is 1, r is 1, m is 0, p is 1 and q is 0, Ar1 is carbazole, Ar4 is phenyl Ar3 is phenyl, Ar6 is carbazole.
For Claim 6: Reads on a MW between 450 and 1500 g/mol.
For Claim 8: Reads on MW of 778.7 g/mol.
For Claim 9: Reads on L comprises at least 4 oxygen atoms.
For Claim 10: Reads on non-emissive.
For Claim 11: Reads on wherein k is 1, r is 1, m is 0, p is 1 and q is 0, Ar1 is carbazole, Ar4 is phenyl Ar3 is phenyl, Ar6 is carbazole.
For Claim 12-14: Reads on wherein the compound comprises 2 carbazoles.
For Claim 15: Reads on wherein the compound comprises a N heteroatom.
For Claim 16: Reads on wherein the compound comprises no heteroatoms which are not part of an aromatic ring.
For Claim 17: Reads on a compound comprising 8 aromatic rings.
For Claim 18: Reads on wherein Ar3 is D1, Ar1 is D11, Ar4 is D1, Ar6 is D11.
For Claim 19: Reads on F9.
For Claim 20: Reads on wherein n is 2.
For Claim 21: Reads on IIa.
For Claim 22: Reads on the substituent is F.
For Claim 23: Reads on G26.
For Claim 24-25: The emission layer reads on a photoactive layer.
For Claim 29: The hole transport layer reads on the hole transport layer.
For Claim 31: Reads on a light emitting device.
In reference to claim 7, Hummert teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While the prior art is silent to the Allen electronegativity value of Mg (1.3), this is an inherent property of the metal. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
In reference to claims 26 and 28, Hummert teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Hummert does not state that the hole injection layer comprises sub-layers as claimed, the device of Hummert meets all of the limitations of the claims anyway. The sub-layers are not required to have different compositions from one another and therefore a single layer meets the limitations of multiple sublayers that have the same composition.
In reference to claim 32, Hummert teaches the device as described above for claim 2. Hummert does not expressly state that the same compound is use din the hole transport material as the host of the hole injection layer. However, Hummert ueses the words transport and inject in reference to charge conducting layers largely interchangeably. Further, Hummert specifically teaches that the hole transport material can be selected from any material capable of such a function and points to several of the same materials used in the hole injection layer host as such examples (Hummert [0465]). In light of the teachings of Hummert, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant application to have selected the same material for both of the HTL and HIL in the absence of unexpected results.
Claim 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummert et al and further in view of Pentlehner et al (US 20200185624) (Pentlehner).
In reference to claim 27, Hummert teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Hummert teaches the same materials are used in a hole transport layer, such as compound T-10 that are included as the hole transporting compound in the hole injection layer (Hummert [0465]). Hummert does not expressly teach that the hole injection layer consists of only the p-dopant. However, such a configuration is well known in the art.
With respect to the difference, Pentlehner teaches, in analogous art, fluorinated sulfonimide metal salts including those taught by Hummert and specifically teaches that they can be used in a hole injection layer that either comprises them as a dopant or a hole injection layer that consists of the p-dopant alone (Pentlehner [2104]) and also teaches adjacent hole transport layers include materials such as those described in Hummert.
That is, the substitution of the layer configuration of Pentlehner for the layer configuration of Hummert, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of efficiently transporting electrons away from the emission layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, Applicant’s clarification for the limitations of claim 1 concerning the naming of the material overcomes the 112 rejections previously set forth. Specifically, Applicant clarified the name generated from Chemdraw for a material referenced in the claims corresponds to a different name in the specification. It is noted that the USPTO no longer has access to Chemdraw software which rendered this clarification necessary.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that each of the tested example devices of Hummet include TSFI as a ligand in the metal compound and as such, the reference would not have provided any reason or motivation not use a metal complex that is free of TFSI as instantly claimed.
This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons. Initially, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 since a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972). Further, the disclosure of Hummert devotes dozens of paragraphs to describing many possible ligand structures for the metal species with only a few of such structures requiring TFSI. Therefore, it is clear that Hummert suggests many materials, including for example D17 as pointed to herein above that does not include TFSI.
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