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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 26 May 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 3, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 8, 10-11, and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 21-25 are new.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, and 14-25 are pending.
The cancellation of claims 8, 10, 11, and 13 has rendered moot the objections to these claims set forth in the last Office action. The objections have been withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 15 have overcome the rejections of claims 1-4, 15-16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”), and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”), Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) and Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), and further in view of Tasaki et al. (US 2021/0005825 A1) (hereafter “Tasaki”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”), Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”), and Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”), and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0183963 A1) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 15-16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”), and further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”), and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”), Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) and Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), and further in view of Tasaki et al. (US 2021/0005825 A1) (hereafter “Tasaki”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”), Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”), and Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”), and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. (US 2020/0388780 A1) (hereafter “Niboshi”), and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0183963 A1) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not properly map to the current claims. Additionally, Applicant argues that the inherency argument with respect to the Pt complex of Fleetham as having the property of a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less.
Applicant asserts that the charge generation layer of Kim is not between a blue fluorescent layer and a blue phosphorescent layer. As described below, the third emitting part of Kim can be equated with the instant second emitting material layer and the instant second emitting part, respectively, and the emissive layer of the first emitting part of Kim can be equated with the instant first emitting material layer and instant first emitting part, respectively. Also described below, each of the first and third emitting parts of Kim a blue emitting parts. Therefore the emissive layer of the first emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant first emitting material layer—as well as the emissive layer of the third emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant second emitting material layer—are each blue emitting material layers.
As described below, the charge generation layer is between these layers.
With regard to the inherency of the Pt complex of Fleetham as having the property of a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less, the figures in Fleetham show that Applicant’s argument is incorrect. Figure 2 of Fleetham shows the emission spectrum of the Pt complex of Fleetham in solvent and the property of a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less is present. Figures 3 and 4 shows the Pt complex of Fleetham when present at a concentration 6% or less has the property of a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less. This shows that in a variety of solvents and host materials and layer thicknesses as evidenced by both the instant specification and the teachings of Fleetham, the metal complex of Fleetham has the property of a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 15-18, 20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 15-18, 20, and 24-25: Kim discloses a light emitting device comprising a substrate, a first electrode and a second electrode facing each other {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0070]-[0071]}.
Kim describes several options for the exact structure of the light emitting device of Fig. 3 of Kim.
The device comprises a first emitting part that is a blue light emitting stack {element 210 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0076]-[0083]}, a first charge generation layer {element 240 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0111]-[0113]}, and a phosphorescent stack {element 220 of Fig. 3 as described in paragraphs [0086], [0097], and [0108] where the red emitter can be an iridium complex, which is a phosphorescent emitter} disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode.
The phosphorescent stack comprises a hole transport layer, a red-light emitting layer, a green light emitting layer, and a yellow-green light emitting layer between the red-light emitting layer and the green light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer sequentially stacked {paragraphs [0086], [0097]}.
The light-emitting dopant of the red-light emitting layer can be equated with a first dopant and can be an iridium complex, which is a phosphorescent emitter {paragraph [0108]}. The peak emission wavelength can be between 610 nm and 640 nm {paragraph [0101]}.
The first charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer and an n-type charge generation layer where the p-type charge generation layer is in contact with the hole transport layer of the phosphorescent stack and the n-type charge generation layer is on the opposite surface of the p-type generation layer to the hole transport layer {paragraphs [0112]-[0113]}.
The organic light emitting diode further comprises a third emitting part including a second blue emitting material layer and positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0119]-[0120]}, and a second charge generation layer positioned between the second emitting part and the third emitting part {Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0126]-[0128]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a device of Kim having the structure described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modifications would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
In the resultant device, the third emitting part of Kim can be equated with the instant second emitting material layer and the instant second emitting part, respectively, and the emissive layer of the first emitting part of Kim can be equated with the instant first emitting material layer and instant first emitting part, respectively. As described above, each of the first and third emitting parts of Kim a blue emitting parts. Therefore the emissive layer of the first emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant first emitting material layer—as well as the emissive layer of the third emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant second emitting material layer—are each blue emitting material layers.
As described above, there is a charge generation layer between the third emitting part of Kim and the first emitting part of Kim. Thus, there is a charge generation layer between the layers being equated with the instant first and second emitting parts.
Kim does not exemplify that one of the electrodes is transparent and one of the electrodes is reflective.
However, Kim teaches that the first electrode can be reflective and the second electrode can be reflective {paragraph [0075]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a device of Kim such that the first electrode is reflective and the second electrode is reflective, based on the teaching of Kim. The modifications would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Kim does not exemplify that the layer being equated with the instant first emitting layer has a first thickness and the layer being equated with the instant second emitting material layer has a second thickness greater than the first thickness.
However, Kim teaches that the emissive layer of the third emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant second emitting material layer and second emitting part, respectively—can have a thickness of 10 to 30 nm {paragraph [0124]}, and that the emissive layer of the first emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant first emitting material layer and first emitting part, respectively—can have a thickness of 10 to 30 nm {paragraph [0124]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim such that the emissive layer of the third emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant second emitting material layer and second emitting part, respectively—to have a thickness greater than that of the emissive layer of the first emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant first emitting material layer and first emitting part, respectively, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial device structures in order to produce organic light-emitting devices with good performance characteristics.
Kim does not teach that the blue emitting unit that is nearest the second electrode the emissive layer of the third emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant second emitting material layer and second emitting part, respectively—comprises a phosphorescent dopant.
Fleetham teaches the compound shown below as a phosphorescent light emitting dopant for organic light emitting devices {Figure 1; Table 1; and p. 7117, 2nd col., final paragraph through p. 7119, 1st col., 1st paragraph}.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fleetham teaches that the compounds of Fleetham are efficient emitters {paragraph bridging pp. 7119-7120}. Fleetham teaches that a doping concentration of 6% provides good efficiency {Fig. 3}.
Fleetham teaches that the compound of Fleetham has a peak emission wavelength of 451 nm {Table 1}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Kim by using the Pt complex of Fleetham shown above at a concentration of 6% as a phosphorescent light emitting dopant of the blue light-emitting layer nearest the second electrode, based on the teaching of Fleetham. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a compound known to be an efficient emitter.
Kim does not teach that the blue emitting unit nearest the first electrode comprises a fluorescent dopant.
Hatakeyama teaches thermally activated delayed fluorescent materials for use as light emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices {paragraphs [0076]-[0077], [0161], and Example 1 of Table 1}.
Hatakeyama exemplifies the compound shown below {Example 1 of Table 1 where compound 1-1 is described in paragraph [0466]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
464
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama teaches that the compound of Hatakeyama has a peak emission wavelength of 470 nm {paragraph [0563]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Kim by using the compound of Hatakeyama shown above as the fluorescent dopant of the blue emitting unit nearest the first electrode, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the use of known fluorescent dopants) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Hatakeyama’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the compounds of Hatakeyama exemplified in device examples), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama does not exemplify that the display device comprises a red, green, and blue pixel region, each comprising the device structure described above.
Kim teaches that the display device can comprise a red, green, and blue pixel region, each comprising the device structure of Kim described above {paragraph [0042]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim by using the device in a device structure comprising a red, green, and blue pixel region, each comprising the device structure of Kim described above, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama does not exemplify that the display device comprises a color filter layer.
Kim teaches that the display device can comprise a color filter layer on the organic light emitting diode {paragraph [0050]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim by incorporating a color filter layer on the organic light emitting diode, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach a ratio of a second emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer to a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less. It is reasonable to presume that a ratio of a second emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer to a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer being 0.5 or less is inherent to Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The compound of Fleetham has the same structure as the instant PD3 {paragraph [0082] of the instant specification}. Table 1 of the instant specification shows that the instant PD3 meets the claimed property.
Additionally, the figures of Fleetham provide evidence. Figure 2 of Fleetham shows the emission spectrum of the Pt complex of Fleetham in solvent and the property of a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less is present. Figures 3 and 4 shows the Pt complex of Fleetham when present at a concentration 6% or less has the property of a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less. This shows that in a variety of solvents and host materials and layer thicknesses as evidenced by both the instant specification and the teachings of Fleetham, the metal complex of Fleetham has the property of a first emission peak intensity of the phosphorescent dopant in the second emitting material layer is 0.5 or less.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Niboshi as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the difference between an average emission wavelength of the fluorescent dopant of the first emitting material layer and an average emission wavelength of the phosphorescent dopant of the second emitting material layer is 20 nm or less. It is reasonable to presume that the difference between an average emission wavelength of the fluorescent dopant of the first emitting material layer and an average emission wavelength of the phosphorescent dopant of the second emitting material layer being 20 nm or less is inherent to Niboshi as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
Hatakeyama teaches that the compound of Hatakeyama has a peak emission wavelength of 470 nm {paragraph [0563]}.
Fleetham teaches that the compound of Fleetham has a peak emission wavelength of 451 nm {Table 1}.
Given the close proximity of the peak emission wavelengths around which most of the emission intensity occurs, the average emission wavelength of the fluorescent dopant of the first emitting material layer and an average emission wavelength of the phosphorescent dopant of the second emitting material layer would have a difference 20 nm or less.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claims 3-4: Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama does not exemplify a specific device in which a ratio of the first thickness to the second thickness in 0.6 or less.
However, Kim teaches that the emissive layer of the third emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant second emitting material layer and second emitting part, respectively—can have a thickness of 10 to 30 nm {paragraph [0124]}, and that the emissive layer of the first emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant first emitting material layer and first emitting part, respectively—can have a thickness of 10 to 30 nm {paragraph [0124]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim such that the a thickness of emissive layer of the third emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant second emitting material layer and second emitting part, respectively—is selected in the range of 10 to 30 nm the thickness of the emissive layer of the first emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant first emitting material layer and first emitting part, respectively— is selected in the range of 10 nm to 30 nm such that the layers have thicknesses such that a ratio of the instant first thickness to the instant second thickness if 0.6 or less, based on the teaching of Kim. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial device structures in order to produce organic light-emitting devices with good performance characteristics.
Given the range of thicknesses taught by Kim—between 10 nm and 30 nm—in the resultant device, the first thickness would be 10 nm or more, and the second thickness would be 50 nm or less.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) as applied to claims 1 and 5 as above, and further in view of Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 21: Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hatakeyama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Kim does not exemplify a host material for the phosphorescent emitting layer, which is the emissive layer of the third emitting part of Kim—which is being equated with the instant second emitting material layer.
However, Kim teaches that more than one host can be used {paragraph [0123]} mCP can be used {paragraph [0061]}.
Kondakova ‘516 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer between the anode and the cathode {Kondakova ‘516: Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], and [0347]-[0355]}.
The organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {Kondakova ‘516: (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0011], [0088], [0204], and [0352]: The device comprises a light emitting layer.), (paragraphs [0011], [0016], and [0204]: The light emitting layer comprises two host materials.)}.
The first host is a hole transporting host material, which can be carbazole derivative {(paragraphs [0011], [0236], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises a hole transporting co-host.), (paragraphs [0017] and [0265]: The hole transporting co-host can be a carbazolyl derivative.)}.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that the hole transporting host can be CBP or mCP {paragraphs [02081]-[0282]}, which have the structures of the instant PH3 to PH4.
The second host is an electron transporting host material, which can be a triazine derivative {paragraphs [0011], [0211], and [0289]: The light-emitting layer comprises an electron transporting co-host, which can be a triazine derivative.}.
Kondakova ‘516 teaches that an emission layer containing two or more host materials have improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime {paragraph [0209]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have further modified the organic light emitting device of Kim by using a phosphorescent emission layer comprising two host materials comprising a hole transporting host and an electron transporting host where the hole transporting host is CBP or mCP, based on the teaching of Kondakova ‘516. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with improved film morphology, electrical properties, light emission efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kondakova ‘516. Furthermore, the selection of CBP or mCP would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified groups hole transporting hosts of Kondakova ‘516), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and beneficial combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce good performing organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 9 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”), Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”), and Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) as applied to claims 1 and 7 as above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0168819 A1) (hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 9 and 22-23: Kim as modified by Fleetham, Hatakeyama, and Kondakova ‘516 teaches all of the features with respect to claim 7, as outlined above.
Kim as modified by Fleetham, Hatakeyama, and Kondakova ‘516 does not exemplify a 2nd host having the structure of the instant Formula 5.
Ahn exemplifies the compound shown below as a compound of Ahn {(paragraph [0110]: The compounds of the disclosure of Ahn are exemplified by the Compounds 1 through 59.), (p. 10, Compound 3)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
738
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The host materials of Ahn can be used to produce organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency and good durability {paragraph [0113]}. Additionally, the compounds have reduced intermolecular attraction {paragraph [0111]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Kim as modified by Fleetham, Hatakeyama, and Kondakova ‘516 such that the 2nd host material that is the electron transporting host is the compound Ahn shown above, based on the teaching of Ahn. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the use of multiple host materials and the host material of Ahn) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Ahn’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified host compounds of Ahn), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additional host material having reduced intermolecular attraction that is known to be used to produce devices with high efficiency and high durability.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) in view of Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”), Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) and Kondakova ‘516 (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereafter “Kondakova”) as applied to claims 1 and 6 as above, and further in view of Tasaki et al. (US 2021/0005825 A1) (hereafter “Tasaki”).
Regarding claims 12, 14, and 23: Kim as modified by Fleetham, Hatakeyama, and Kondakova ‘516.
Kim as modified by Fleetham, Hatakeyama, and Kondakova ‘516 does not exemplify a specific host material for the fluorescent light emitting layer, which is the blue light emitting layer of the first emitting part of Kim, as described above.
However, Kim teaches that the host material of the emissive layer of the first emitting part can have a host material that is an anthracene derivative {paragraph [0123]}.
Tasaki teaches the compound below as a host material in organic light emitting devices for polycyclic boron containing dopants {paragraph [0221]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
122
182
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the host material of Tasaki in the fluorescent light emitting layer of Kim, based on the teaching of Tasaki. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as modified by Fleetham et al. (“Efficient “Pure” Blue OLEDs Employing Tetradentate Pt Complexes with a Narrow Spectral Bandwidth” Advanced Materials (2014) vol. 26, pp. 7116-7121.) (hereafter “Fleetham”) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0190115 A1) (hereinafter “Hatakeyama”) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0183963 A1).
Regarding claim 19: Kim as modified by Fleetham and Hakeyama teaches all of the features with respect to claim 15, as outlined above.
Kim does not teach a color conversion light-emitting device comprising the organic light-emitting device and a fluorescent layer disposed so as to face the light-extracted side of the organic light-emitting device, the fluorescent layer absorbing light emitted from the organic light-emitting device to emit light have a color different from the color of the absorbed light.
Nakamura et al. teaches a color conversion light-emitting device {paragraph [0045], lines 1-5} comprising a solid light-emitting element {paragraph [0045], line 3} and a fluorescent layer disposed so as to face the light-extracted side of the organic light-emitting device {paragraph [0045], lines 1-5: The color conversion layer}, the fluorescent layer absorbing light emitted from the organic light-emitting device to emit light have a color different from the color of the absorbed light {paragraph [0045]: The light-emitting material in the color conversion layer can emit fluorescent light, and the color of the light can be adjusted through the selection of the light-emitting material.}.
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the light-emitting device disclosed by Kim by including the color conversion layer of Nakamura et al. on the light extraction side of the device, based on the teaching of Nakamura et al.. The motivation for doing so would have been to adjust the color of the light emitting from the light-emitting device, as taught by Nakamura et al..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights