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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021/106074, filed on 06/25/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/21/2022 and 02/11/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 06/21/2022. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 08/23/2022, the claims, specification, drawings were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claim 19 has been amended.
Claims 1-25 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 08/23/2022 have been entered.
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 1-21 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claim 1 requires an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, an emitting layer between the anode and cathode, a first layer of at least 15 nm thickness adjacent to the emitting layer, a second layer between the first layer and the anode, the emitting layer comprises a TADF compound, the first layer comprises a first compound, the second layer comprises a second compound, and the ionization potential of the first compound (Ip (HT1)) satisfies Numerical Formula 1, the hole mobility of the first compound (µh(HT1)) satisfies Numerical Formula 2, and the ionization potential of the second compound (Ip(HT2)) satisfies Numerical Formula 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
140
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the present application does not provide the person having ordinary skill in the art with a sufficient disclosure to effectuate these limitations. For example, the present application does not disclose how a first and second compound with the claimed chemical properties can be reasonably formed, nor does the specification provide a general formula by which such compounds can be reasonably formed. As such, the first and second compounds are not enabled by the application, as originally filed. The factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) are discussed below.
(A) The breadth of the claims
The present claims are directed to an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, a cathode, an emitting layer between the anode and cathode, a first layer of at least 15 nm thickness adjacent to the emitting layer, a second layer between the first layer and the anode, the emitting layer comprises a TADF compound, the first layer comprises a first compound, the second layer comprises a second compound, and the ionization potential of the first compound (Ip (HT1)) satisfies Numerical Formula 1, the hole mobility of the first compound (µh(HT1)) satisfies Numerical Formula 2, and the ionization potential of the second compound (Ip(HT2)) satisfies Numerical Formula 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
140
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There are no further limitations regarding the structure of the first and second compound and TADF compound. Since few limitations are present with regard to the composition, and no structural limitations are provided for either the first or second compounds or the delayed fluorescent emitter, the claims cover a significantly broad range of possible compounds and combinations for an organic electroluminescence device. Identifying a first and second compound which could be reasonably expected to possess the claimed hole mobility and ionization potential relationships presents a serious burden.
(B) The nature of the invention
The invention appears to relate to dual hole transport layers in an organic electroluminescence device wherein each layer comprises a different compound and the compounds possess specific chemical properties such as ionization potential and hole mobility. On pages 57-62 of the instant specification, several examples of the instant first compound are given. Examiner notes that many of these compounds are extremely different and share only the feature of a monoamine structure. Similarly, on pages 63-76 of the instant specification, several examples of the instant second compound are given. These compounds are also extremely different, sharing only the feature of having a monoamine structure. Because these structures are so different, it is unclear how these compounds were arrived at since they share so few structural similarities. It also makes it unclear whether additional compounds are present which are not represented, but which would satisfy the scope of the independent claim. Despite the nature of the invention as set forth in the independent claim, no structure is given which would lead one of ordinary skill to suspect the compounds in the specification would possess the claimed chemical properties.
(C) The state of the prior art
The claims appear to be drawn to an organic electroluminescent device with two hole transport layers independently comprising one of a first or second hole transport amine which possess specific chemical properties, and an emission layer comprising a matrix compound, a TADF compound, and a boron-based dopant. Dual hole transport layer OLEDs were known as of the filing date of the claimed invention. Similarly, emission layers comprising a matrix material, dopant, and TADF material were known prior to the filing date of the claimed invention. However, despite such devices being known in the art, the number of amine compounds which are suitable for the instant first or second compound is vast and there is no set structure for what a first or second compound which possess the claimed chemical properties should look like. The specification does not reasonably enable a person having ordinary skill in the art with a method by which to identify any or all additional compounds which would have the claimed hole mobility or ionization potentials.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill
Determining the ionization potential or hole mobility of a compound is known in the art. However, Examiner’s position is that applicant has not made a convincing show that every single compound that would satisfy these relationships is represented, or could be identified without serious experimental burden. Thus, while these values may be simple to calculate, the process of experimental determination of the ionization potential and hole mobility of every conceivable first and second compound is long and tedious and presents a serious experimental burden.
(E) The level of predictability in the art
The level of predictability presented by Applicant is very low. As outlined above, it is not clear which first and second hole transport compounds have the claimed hole mobility and ionization potentials and which could be used in a layer of the device as a compound of the invention. Applicant has only presented data for three first compounds (HT1-1, HT1-2, and HT1-3) and three second compounds (HT2-1, HT2-2, and HT2-3) in different combinations. These structures are pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image2.png
414
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
590
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These structures do not share many structural features other than being a monoamine. Thus, it cannot be easily predicted which monoamine would possess the claimed hole mobility and ionization potential. Similarly, no general formula is given by which to reliably arrive a first or second compound that would meet the requirements of the instant claimed invention.
While applicant provides a formula for a first compound in claim 14, the limitations of a dependent claim cannot be read into the independent claim. There appears to be no predictability for a second compound in any claim or in the specification.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor
The amount of direction provided by the inventor is very low. On pages 57-62 of the instant specification, several examples of the instant first compound are given. Examiner notes that many of these compounds are extremely different and share only the feature of a monoamine structure. Similarly, on pages 63-76 of the instant specification, several examples of the instant second compound are given. These compounds are also extremely different, sharing only the feature of having a monoamine structure. The hole mobility and ionization potential of none of these compounds are given. With respect to the first compound, the specification offers formula (10) (page 53) by which to form some embodiments. No direction is given on how to arrive at an instant second compound.
(G) The existence of working examples
While applicant’s specification includes device examples Ex. 1-1, Ex. 1-2, Ex, 1-3 (page 221), Ex. 2-1, Ex. 2-2, Ex. 2-3, Ex. 2-4, Ex. 2-5, Ex. 2-7, Ex. 2-8, and Ex. 2-9 (page 226), and Ex. 3-1, Ex. 3-2, Ex. 3-3, Ex. 3-4, Ex 3-5, and Ex. 3-6 (page 228) these devices only comprise some combination of first compounds HT1-1, HT1-2, and HT1-3 and second compounds HT2-1, HT2-2, and HT2-3. Thus, only three first compounds, out of every conceivable hole transport compound, and only three second compounds, out of every conceivable hole transport compound are represented, while Applicant appears to claim any compound as long as it possess the claimed hole mobility and ionization potential.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure
The quantity of experimentation needed to make the claimed invention is high because, as outlined above, there is not enough direction provided to arrive at a hole transport compound which has the claimed chemical properties. Moreover, no general formula or hole mobility/ionization potential influencing structural limitations are provided to arrive at a compound which would meet the requirements of the instant claim.
As such, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected by virtue of dependency
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (WO 2020/111251 A1, using US 2020/317653 A1 as an official translation and for references) and Ryu et al. (US 2013/0105771 A1) in view of Yoshizaki et al. (US 2019/0288221 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ito discloses device Example 5 (Table 1, page 97) comprising an anode (ITO, paragraphs 0243 and 0231), a cathode (Al, paragraphs 0243 and 0239), an emitting layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0235), and two hole transport layers between the emitting layer and the anode. The first hole transport layer is 75 nm thick (paragraph 0233) and is adjacent to the hole injection layer (anode side) and comprises HT-1 (paragraph 0233), which is pictured below, and the second hole transport layer is 15 nm thick (paragraph 0234) and is adjacent to the emitting layer (cathode side) and comprises the inventive compound (paragraph 0234), which is Compound 5 (paragraph 0243 and Table 1), which is also pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
316
340
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
396
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The instant first layer is analogous to the second hole transport layer of Ito and the instant first compound is analogous to Compound 5 of Ito. The instant second layer is analogous to the first hole transport layer of Ito and the instant second compound is analogous to HT-1 of Ito.
However, Compound 5 of Ito does not meet the ionization potential and hole mobility requirements of the instant claim.
In analogous art, Ryu teaches a monoamine compound for the hole transport layer (paragraph 0026) of an organic optoelectronic device according to Chemical Formula 1 (abstract), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
328
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This formula overlaps in scope with Compound 5 of Ito when Y is an oxygen atom (paragraph 0018), X is a sulfur atom (paragraph 0017), Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (paragraph 0020), n is 1, m is 0 and Ar2 is not present, and Ar3 is a C18 aryl group, such as terphenyl (Chemical Formula 13, paragraph 0021).
Ryu also teaches that Y is a sulfur atom (paragraph 0018) and X is an oxygen atom (paragraph 0017).
Ryu teaches that since dibenzofuran, having a hole transporting property, and dibenzothiophene are asymmetrically bound to a tertiary amine structure, an excellent hole transporting property and thin film stability are realized (paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the extremely structurally similar Compound 5 of Ito with the compound of Ryu in order to obtain a compound with excellent hole transporting property and thin film stability, as taught by Ryu.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the compound of Ryu in the second hole transport layer of the device of Ito (the instant first hole transport layer) because the compounds are extremely structurally similar. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 60 (Ryu’s compound) and 73 (Ito’s HT-1) of the instant specification.
With respect to Ito’s HT-1, Examiner acknowledges that compound HT-1 of Ito and the instant second compound differ in the bonding position of the amine and carbazole on the benzene moiety. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of HT-1 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as hole transport materials in the first hole transport layer of the electroluminescent device of Ito and possess the properties taught by Ito. As discussed above, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The MPEP teaches us that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Ito and Ryu read on the claims.
Ryu and Ito are silent to the ionization potential and hole mobility of the first compound, and the ionization potential of the second compound. However, each of these are considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as hole transport materials in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Ito and Ryu, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the works of Ito and Ryu were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
However, while Ito teaches the device may be a fluorescent light emission device (paragraph 0109), neither Ito nor Ryu teaches nor fairly suggests that the emitting layer comprises a delayed fluorescent compound.
In analogous art, Yoshizaki teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first and second compound in the emitting layer and the second compound is a delayed fluorescent compound (abstract) which is a matrix material (paragraph 0071), such as TADF1 (page 114), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image7.png
268
320
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yoshizaki teaches that the organic electroluminescent device comprising the inventive emitting layer has improved performance in at least one of luminous efficiency and lifetime (paragraph 0134).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the TADF compound composition of Yoshizaki as the emitting material layer in the device of Ito in order to obtain an organic electroluminescent device with improved performance in at least one of luminous efficiency and lifetime, as taught by Yoshizaki.
With respect to claim 2, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the first and second compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 60 (Ryu’s compound) and 73 (Ito’s compound HT-1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Ito read on the claims.
Ryu and Ito are silent to the ionization potentials of the first and second compound, respectively. However, these are considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compounds are used as hole transport materials in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Ryu and Ito, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the works of Ryu and Ito were first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 3, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the first compound of Ryu, discussed above, to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 60 of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Ryu reads on the claim.
Ryu is silent to the ionization potential of the first compound. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as hole transport material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Ryu, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ryu was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 4, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Ito nor Ryu teaches that the emitting layer comprises an emitting compound which emits light having a maximum peak wavelength between 600 nm and 660 nm.
Yoshizaki teaches an example device, Ex 1A-1 (Table 14, page 118) that comprises the fluorescent compound TADF1, as pictured above, and luminescent dopant D1, pictured below, which has a peak wavelength of 616 nm.
PNG
media_image8.png
512
540
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combination of TADF1 and D1 in order to obtain light emission with a peak wavelength of 616 nm, as taught by Yoshizaki.
With respect to claim 5, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and Ito also teaches that the first layer (the second hole transport layer) is directly adjacent to the emitting layer (paragraphs 0235), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and Ito also teaches that the first layer is directly in contact with the second layer (paragraph 0234), as discussed above.
With respect to claim 7, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and Yoshizaki teaches that the emitting layer comprises compound M2, which is analogous to the delayed fluorescent compound pictured above (TADF1), and a fluorescent compound, which is analogous to the fluorescent compound pictured above (D1), as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting these compounds to meet the requirements of the instant claim through their use as a preferred embodiments of the claimed invention, as given on pages 108 (M2/TADF 1) and 123 (M1/D1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Yoshizaki read on the claims.
Yoshizaki is silent to the singlet energy of the compounds. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when TADF1 and D1 are used as materials in the emission layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Ito in view of Yoshizaki, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ito and Yoshizaki was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 8, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and Yoshizaki also teaches that the emitting layer further comprises matrix material M1, which has a singlet energy of 3.63 eV (paragraph 0538), and that the delayed fluorescent compound TADF1 has a singlet energy of 2.37 eV (paragraph 0534). This relationship satisfies instant Numerical Formula 4.
With respect to claim 9 and 10, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and Ito also teaches that the film thickness of each layer is not particularly limited and is between 10 nm and 2 µm (paragraph 0220).
In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the claimed layer thicknesses lie within the limitations of Ito. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 11, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the second compound, HT-1 of Ito, to meet the requirements of the instant claim through its use as preferred embodiment of the claimed invention, as given on page 73 (compound HT-1) of the instant specification. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compound of Ito reads on the claim.
Ito is silent to the ionization potential of HT-1. However, this is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when the compound is used as hole transport material in the organic layer of an electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed property described in the instant claim. Therefore, the claim is considered to be obvious over Ito, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed composition and the composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ito was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 12, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and Ito also teaches that the film thickness of each layer is not particularly limited and is between 10 nm and 2 µm (paragraph 0220).
In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the claimed layer thicknesses lie within the limitations of Ito. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 13, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and the emitting layer of Yoshizaki only comprises compounds D1, TADF1, and M1, none of which are a metal complex.
With respect to claims 14-17, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and the first compound is represented by formula (10) when L10 is an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 ring carbon atoms (phenylene) and Ar10 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 12 ring carbon atoms (biphenyl, 11a), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 18, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device of claim 1, and Ito also teaches that the organic EL device may be used in an display component such as a TV (paragraph 0221).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the organic electroluminescent device in an electronic device such as a TV, as taught by Ito.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (WO 2020/111251 A1, using US 2020/317653 A1 as an official translation and for references) and Ryu et al. (US 2013/0105771 A1) in view of Yoshizaki et al. (US 2019/0288221 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2019/230708 A1, using US 2021/242428 A1 as an official translation and for references).
With respect to claim 19, Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki teach the device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Ito, Ryu, nor Yoshizaki teach an organic electroluminescence display device comprising a blue pixel, a green pixel, and a red pixel wherein the first layer is provided between the red light emitting layer and the anode and the second layer is shared across the red pixel, green pixel, and blue pixel between the first layer and the anode of each pixel.
In analogous art, Nishimura teaches an organic electroluminescence device including a delayed fluorescent compound (abstract), as well as RGB (red, green, blue) pixels (paragraph 0022 and Figure 1).
Nishimura teaches a device example in Figure 15, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image9.png
512
356
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In this figure, the red pixel comprises a first hole transport layer (R_HT2) adjacent to the red light emitting layer (R_EML), and a second hole transport layer (R_HT1) which is between the first layer and the anode and is common to the green emission layer (G_EML) and blue emission layer (B_EML).
Nishimura teaches that the invention provides an organic electroluminescence device capable of improving luminous efficiency (paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the red light emitting layer and hole transport layers of Ito and Ryu in view of Yoshizaki into the device of Nishimura in order to obtain a full-color device with improved luminous efficiency, as taught by Nishimura.
With respect to claim 20, Ito, Ryu, Yoshizaki, and Nishimura teach the device of claim 19, as discussed above.
Nishimura also teaches that the hole transporting zone preferably includes a second common layer (e.g. a hole transporting layer) provided in common through pixels (paragraph 0059), the hole transporting zone may be comprised of multiple layers (paragraph 0095), and that the second common layer may be formed in each of the RGB pixels and with this arrangement, productivity of the organic EL device is improved.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second, common hole transporting layer in order to improve the productivity of the EL device as taught by Nishimura.
With respect to claim 21, Ito, Ryu, Yoshizaki, and Nishimura teach the device of claim 19, and Ito also teaches that the organic EL device may be used in an display component such as a TV (paragraph 0221).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the organic electroluminescent device in an electronic device such as a TV, as taught by Ito.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2013/0105771 A1).
With respect to claims 22-25, Ryu discloses Compound A-374 (page 66), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image10.png
462
572
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This compound is derived from Ryu Chemical Formula 1, which is pictured below, which is not limiting to the bonding position of the amine nitrogen to the dibenzothiophene moiety.
PNG
media_image6.png
328
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Given the general formula and teachings of Ryu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of Compound A-374 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as hole transport materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Ryu and possess the properties taught by Ryu. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of the instant claim when L10 is a single bond and Ar10 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl, 10a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2017/0317289 A1) – teaches relevant hole transport monoamines.
Yabunouchi et al. (US 2014/0061630 A1) – teaches relevant hole transport monoamines.
Zhang et al. (US 2021/0098705 A1) – teaches the benefits of common hole transport layers (paragraph 0003).
Jeon et al. (US 2017/0352816 A1) – teaches relevant TADF materials.
Fujita et al. (US 2017/0288147 A1) – teaches two hole transport layers, each layer comprising a different monoamine compound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786