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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on November 26, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on April 18, 2023.
Claims 1 – 25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on April 18, 2023 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 define Formula I as containing LB wherein LB is represented by Formula 3
PNG
media_image1.png
130
114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. However, the claim does not define Y4 or Y5. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which atoms or groups, the variables are allowed to be.
For examination purposes, the variables are interpreted as being any atom or group.
Claims 2 – 13 and 15 – 25 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 14.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20190013490A1) in view of Kwon (US20220069237A1).
As per claims 1 – 8 and 24, Cho teaches:
An organic light emitting diode, including a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emissive layer disposed between the first and second electrodes and including at least one emitting material layer ([0008]: “The present invention provides an organic light emitting device comprising: a cathode, an anode, and at least one light emitting layer interposed between the cathode and the anode.”)
The emitting material layer including a host including a first host represented by Formula 7
PNG
media_image2.png
312
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0042 – 0049]: “Preferably, the light emitting layer includes a first host compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 1-1
PNG
media_image3.png
188
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
… and a second host compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image4.png
192
312
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.” A particular host compound within Formula 2 taught by Cho is
PNG
media_image5.png
250
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on Page 25. This reads on the claimed Formula 7 wherein R41 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl, R42 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; p and 1 are 0 so that R43 and R44 do not exist. This host material is the same host material as GHH7
PNG
media_image6.png
256
164
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claim 7.)
The emitting material layer including a host including a second host represented by Formula 9
PNG
media_image7.png
290
256
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0042 – 0049]: “Preferably, the light emitting layer includes a first host compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 1-1
PNG
media_image3.png
188
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
… and a second host compound represented by the following Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image4.png
192
312
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.” A particular host compound within Formula 1-1 taught by Cho is
PNG
media_image8.png
190
250
media_image8.png
Greyscale
on Page 9, which reads on claimed Formula 1-1 wherein R51 and R52 are each a C6 aryl group; R53 is hydrogen; L is a single bond; Y1 to Y3 are each N; Z is O. This compound is the same as compound GEH3
PNG
media_image9.png
220
204
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 8.)
Cho teaches that the light emitting material layer may include a dopant and that the dopant may be an iridium metal complex, but the dopant is not particularly limited ([0074 – 0075]). Cho does not specifically teach:
The emitting material layer including a dopant represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image10.png
68
132
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein LA has a structure represented by Formula 2
PNG
media_image11.png
402
312
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Kwon teaches organometallic compounds with a ligand represented by Formula 1A
PNG
media_image12.png
246
324
media_image12.png
Greyscale
([0007]). Kwon teaches that organometallic compound within this Formula provide low driving voltage, high efficiency and long lifespan when used as dopants in organic electroluminescent devices ([0146]). A specific compound within the scope of Formula 1A taught by Kwon is compound 1
PNG
media_image13.png
232
304
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0145]). The compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 to X9 is independently CR, wherein the R groups are protium; and a is 0. The compound reads on Formula 4A in claim 2 and Formula 4C in claim 3 wherein c is 0. LB has a structure represented by Formula 5A
PNG
media_image14.png
226
214
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, wherein R21 and R22 are both protium. The compound is the same as compound 1in claim 6
PNG
media_image15.png
168
158
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dopant within the scope of claimed Formula 1 in the OLED of Cho because Cho does not limit the particular dopant material and teaches that the dopant can be iridium metal complexes ([0074 – 0075] and because Kwon teaches that the claimed compounds provide low driving voltage, high efficiency and long lifespan when used as dopants in organic electroluminescent devices ([0146]).
As per claim 24, Cho teaches:
An organic light emitting device including a substrate wherein the organic light emitting diode is disposed on the substrate ([0085]: “For example, the organic light emitting device according to the present invention may be manufactured by sequentially laminating the cathode, the organic material layer and the anode on the substrate.”)
Claims 9 – 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US20190013490A1) in view of Kwon (US20220069237A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8 and 24 above, and further in view of Shin (US20180166647A1).
As per claims 9 – 13, the prior art combination does not teach:
A second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including a second emitting material layer, and a first charge generation layer disposed between the first and second emitting materials, a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode and including a third emitting material layer, and a second charge generation layer disposed between the second and third emitting parts (In Fig. 2, as described in [0096], Shin teaches a device structure in which three emitting units, namely ST1, ST2, and ST3 are provided in between the anode and the cathode, with two charge generation layer CGL1 and CGL2 in between each of the emitting units.)
A first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the second electrode, wherein the second emitting material layer further includes a third layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer (Since the claims requires three layers, but does not define the layers compositionally, the layers can be interpreted as sublayers of any of the layers in ST2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed compounds as the host and dopant materials in the emissive layer in a stacked OLED because Shin demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Because the prior art combination teaches that the compounds are suitable for use in emissive layers, it would have been obvious to use the compounds in one of the limited, finite number of emissive layers, such as the first and second emitting material layers as claimed.
As per claims 14 – 18, the teachings of the prior art above with respect to the host materials and dopant are incorporated herein. The prior art combination does not specifically teach:
The first emitting part including a blue emitting material layer, and a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode, and including at least one emitting material layer, and first charge generation layer disposed between the first and second emitting parts (In Fig. 2, as described in [0096], Shin teaches a device structure in which three emitting units, namely ST1, ST2, and ST3 are provided in between the anode and the cathode, with two charge generation layer CGL1 and CGL2 in between each of the emitting units. In [0066], Shin teaches that the first emitting material layer may emit a blue light.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed compounds as the host and dopant materials in the emissive layer in a stacked OLED because Shin demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Because the prior art combination teaches that the compounds are suitable for use in emissive layers, it would have been obvious to use the compounds in one of the limited, finite number of emissive layers, such as the first and second emitting material layers as claimed.
As per claim 19, Shin teaches:
A first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode, the first layer including a red emitting material layer (In [0066], Shin teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer.)
As per claim 20, Shin teaches:
Wherein the at least one emitting material layer further includes a third layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the third layer includes a yellow green emitting material layer (In [0075], Shin teaches that to improve red efficiency, a material unit may include two emitting material layers, such as a yellow-green emitting material layer and a red emitting material layer.)
As per claim 21, Shin teaches:
Wherein the emissive layer further includes a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode and including a blue emitting material layer, and a second charge generation layer disposed between the second and third emitting parts (In Fig. 2, as described in [0096], Shin teaches a device structure in which three emitting units, namely ST1, ST2, and ST3 are provided in between the anode and the cathode, with two charge generation layer CGL1 and CGL2 in between each of the emitting units. In [0104], Shin teaches that the third emitting material layer may emit a blue light.)
As per claim 22, Shin teaches:
Wherein the at least one emitting material layer further includes a first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode, the first layer including a red emitting layer, and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the second electrode (In [0066], Shin teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer.)
As per claim 23, Shin teaches:
Wherein the at least one emitting material layer further includes a third layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer, and wherein the third layer includes a yellow green emitting material layer (In [0075], Shin teaches that to improve red efficiency, a material unit may include two emitting material layers, such as a yellow-green emitting material layer and a red emitting material layer.)
As per claim 25, Cho teaches:
An organic light emitting device including a substrate wherein the organic light emitting diode is disposed on the substrate ([0085]: “For example, the organic light emitting device according to the present invention may be manufactured by sequentially laminating the cathode, the organic material layer and the anode on the substrate.”)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights