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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 47-51 of the reply filed 05/22/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1, hereafter Lee), the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo), and the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 above, further in view of Ossila (Material information of FIrpic from Ossila, web page address: https://www.ossila.com/products/firpic, hereafter Ossila) set forth in the Office Action of 01/26/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the features added in the amended claims.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to the Compound H2-78 of Lee (section 7 of the last Office Action).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound H2-78 of Lee does not have a silyl group of Formula 2; however, the compound reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 1, because the non-zero subscript selected from a to f does not need to be the subscript of the substituent represented by Formula 2. For instance, the Compound H2-78 of Lee reads on all the limitations of Formula 1, when R1 is Formula 2; a is 0; R2 to R6 are each hydrogen; and b to f are each 1. Such selections of R1 to R6 and a to f do not require the Formula 2 to exist but read on all the limitations of Formula 1.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 47-51 of the reply filed 05/22/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-4 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yun et al. (“Triplet Exciton Upconverting Blue Exciplex Host for Deep Blue Phosphors”, Chem. Eur. J. 2021, vol. 27, page 12642-12648, hereafter Yun), the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yun, as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-20 above, further in view of Seo, and the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yun, as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-20 above, further in view of Ossila set forth in the Office Action of 01/26/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the features added in the amended claims.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to the Compound of Lee as modified by Yun (section 51 of the last Office Action).
PNG
media_image2.png
399
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound of Lee as modified by Yun does not have any of Formulas 2-1 to 2-6 at any of positions R1 to R4; however, the compound still reads on all the limitations of Formula 1, because the subscripts of the substituents R1 to R4 can be zero. For instance, the Compound of Lee as modified by Yun reads on all the limitations of Formula 1, when R1, R5, and R6 are each Formula 2-1; a is 0; R2, R3, and R4 are each hydrogen; and b to f are each 1. Such selections of R1 to R6 and a to f do not require the substituent represented by any of Formula 2-1 to 2-6 to exist at the positions R1 to R4, but allow to read on all the limitations of Formula 1.
For at least this reason, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19, Lee discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (anode), an emission layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the emission layer comprises a first host compound of Formula 1 and a second host compound of Formula 2 ([0008]).
PNG
media_image3.png
349
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches the structure of a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (Example 3-2 in Table 2, [0056]), wherein the compound D-96 is a red phosphorescent emitter.
The second host does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims; however, Lee does teach Compound H2-78 as the second host ([0036]).
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 light emitting element of Lee by substituting the second host compound with Compound H2-78, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the second host compounds of Formula 2 of Lee in the OLED of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting element of Lee comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound H2-78 as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
It should be noted that the Compound H2-78 of Lee does not have a silyl group of Formula 2; however, the compound reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 1, because the non-zero subscript selected from a to f does not need to be the subscript of the substituent represented by Formula 2. For instance, the Compound H2-78 of Lee reads on all the limitations of Formula 1, when R1 is Formula 2; a is 0; R2 to R6 are each hydrogen; and b to f are each 1. Such selections of R1 to R6 and a to f do not require the Formula 2 to exist but read on all the limitations of Formula 1.
The Compound H2-78 reads on all the limitations of claims 14-19.
The Modified light emitting element of Lee reads on all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 7-12.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo).
Regarding claim 5, the Modified light emitting element of Lee reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound H2-78 as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The device does not comprises an electron transport layer comprising the Compound H2-78 of Lee.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of a light emitting element (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “2nd mixed region” between “light emitting region” and “electron transporting region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Modified light emitting element of Lee by incorporating a mixed layer between the electron transport layer and the emission layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Seo comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound H2-78 as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), a mixed layer containing Compound H2-78 of Lee, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the mixed layer is equated with an electron transport layer because the layer can transport electrons.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 above, further in view of Ossila (Material information of FIrpic from Ossila, web page address: https://www.ossila.com/products/firpic, hereafter Ossila).
Regarding claim 6, the Modified light emitting element of Lee reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound H2-78 as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The device emits red light and does not emit white light; however, Lee does teach that a blue emitter can be included in the emission layer such that the light emitting device can emit white light ([0047]).
Ossila teaches that FIrpic is commercially available and provides sky blue emission with high efficiency and peak emission wavelength of 468 nm (page 2)
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 Modified light emitting element of Lee by incorporating a blue light emitting compound FIrpic in the emission layer of the device as taught by Lee and Ossila.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide commercial availability, sky blue emission with high efficiency, based on the teaching of Ossila.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides light emitting element of Lee as modified by Ossila comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound H2-78 as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant, and FIrpic as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the device emits a portion of light having peak emission wavelength of 468 nm.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) in view of Yun et al. (“Triplet Exciton Upconverting Blue Exciplex Host for Deep Blue Phosphors”, Chem. Eur. J. 2021, vol. 27, page 12642-12648, hereafter Yun).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19, Lee discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (anode), an emission layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the emission layer comprises a first host compound of Formula 1 and a second host compound of Formula 2 ([0008]).
PNG
media_image4.png
357
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches the structure of a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (Example 3-2 in Table 2, [0056]), wherein the compound D-96 is a red phosphorescent emitter.
The second host does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims; however, Lee does teach Compound H2-78 as the second host ([0036]).
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 light emitting element of Lee by substituting the second host compound with Compound H2-78, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the second host compounds of Formula 2 of Lee in the OLED of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting element of Lee comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound H2-78 as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The Compound H2-78 of Lee does not have a triphenyl silyl group substituted to the phenyl substituted to the triazinyl group (i.e. the positions pointed by arrows in the figure above). However, Lee does teach that the phenyl group substituted to the triazinyl group can be further substituted by a triphenyl silyl group (see examples including at least compound H2-10 in [0036]).
Yun discloses a compound used for a light emitting element (Abstract), wherein the compound comprises a diphenyl substituted triazinyl structure; and the diphenyl groups are each substituted by a triphenyl silyl group (Scheme 1; see the parts enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
273
517
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yun teaches that the triphenylsilyl group surrounds the triazine core and prevents intermolecular packing and provides high triplet energy (page 12643, col. 1, par. 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 Compound H2-78 of Lee by substituting each of the phenyl groups substituted to the triazinyl group with a triphenyl silyl group, as taught by Lee and Yun.
The motivation of doing so would have been to surround the triazine core, prevent intermolecular packing and provide high triplet energy, based on the teaching of Yun.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of exemplified substituents from hydrogen to triphenyl silyl group in the compound of Formula 2 of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Yun which has identical structure as Applicant’s Compound 1 of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image6.png
319
586
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It should be noted that the Compound of Lee as modified by Yun does not have any of Formulas 2-1 to 2-6 at any of positions R1 to R4; however, the compound still reads on all the limitations of Formula 1, because the subscripts of the substituents R1 to R4 can be zero. For instance, the Compound of Lee as modified by Yun reads on all the limitations of Formula 1, when R1, R5, and R6 are each Formula 2-1; a is 0; R2, R3, and R4 are each hydrogen; and b to f are each 1. Such selections of R1 to R6 and a to f do not require the substituent represented by any of Formula 2-1 to 2-6 to exist at the positions R1 to R4, but allow to read on all the limitations of Formula 1.
The Compound of Lee as modified by Yun reads on all the limitations of claims 14-19.
The modification also provides Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Yun comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound Lee as modified by Yun as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 7-12.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) in view of Yun et al. (“Triplet Exciton Upconverting Blue Exciplex Host for Deep Blue Phosphors”, Chem. Eur. J. 2021, vol. 27, page 12642-12648), as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Yun reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound Lee as modified by Yun as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The device does not comprises an electron transport layer comprising the Compound of Lee as modified by Yun.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of a light emitting element (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “2nd mixed region” between “light emitting region” and “electron transporting region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Modified light emitting element of Lee by incorporating a mixed layer between the electron transport layer and the emission layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Yun and Seo comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound of Lee as modified by Yun as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), a mixed layer containing the Compound of Lee as modified by Yun, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the mixed layer is equated with an electron transport layer because the layer can transport electrons.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) in view of Yun et al. (“Triplet Exciton Upconverting Blue Exciplex Host for Deep Blue Phosphors”, Chem. Eur. J. 2021, vol. 27, page 12642-12648), as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14-19 above, further in view of Ossila (Material information of FIrpic from Ossila, web page address: https://www.ossila.com/products/firpic).
Regarding claim 6, the Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Yun reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound of Lee as modified by Yun as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The device emits red light and does not emit white light; however, Lee does teach that a blue emitter can be included in the emission layer such that the light emitting device can emit white light ([0047]).
Ossila teaches that FIrpic is commercially available and provides sky blue emission with high efficiency and peak emission wavelength of 468 nm (page 2)
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 Modified light emitting element of Lee by incorporating a blue light emitting compound FIrpic in the emission layer of the device as taught by Lee and Ossila.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide commercial availability, sky blue emission with high efficiency, based on the teaching of Ossila.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides light emitting element of Lee as modified by Yun and Ossila comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound of Lee as modified by Yun as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant, and FIrpic as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the device emits a portion of light having peak emission wavelength of 468 nm.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) in view of Kang et al. (“A host material containing tetraphenylsilane for phosphorescent OLEDs with high efficiency and operational stability”, Org. Elec. 2008, vol. 9, page 452-460, hereafter Kang) and Lai et al. (“m -Indolocarbazole Derivative as a Universal Host Material for RGB and White Phosphorescent OLEDs”, Adv. Func. Mater. 2015, vol. 25, page 5548-5556, hereafter Lai).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-13, and 14-20, Lee discloses a light emitting element comprising a first electrode (anode), an emission layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the emission layer comprises a first host compound of Formula 1 and a second host compound of Formula 2 ([0008]).
Lee teaches the structure of a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode (Example 3-2 in Table 2, [0056]), wherein the compound D-96 is a red phosphorescent emitter.
The second host does not read on the limitation of Applicant’s Formula 1 of the instant claims; however, Lee does teach Compound H2-7 as the second host ([0036]).
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 light emitting element of Lee by substituting the second host compound with Compound H2-7, as taught by Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the second host compounds of Formula 2 of Lee in the OLED of Lee would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting element of Lee comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound H2-7 as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
PNG
media_image7.png
592
613
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Compound H2-7 of Lee does not have a triphenyl silyl group substituted to the phenyl substituted to the pyrimidine group (i.e. the positions pointed by a black arrow in the figure above). However, Lee does teach that the phenyl group substituted to the pyrimidine group can be further substituted by a triphenyl silyl group (see examples including compound H2-10 in [0036]; and see the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above).
Kang discloses a compound comprising a tetraphenyl silane moiety and used as the host of an phosphorescent light emitting device (Abstract, and Scheme 1).
Kang teaches that tetraphenylsilane provides high triplet energy, thermal and chemical stability, and glass properties, high efficiency, and operational stability (Abstract, page 453, col. 1, par. 2).
The carbazolyl group of the Compound H2-7 of Lee is not a phenyl indolocarbazolyl group (i.e. the positions pointed by a white arrow in the figure above). However, Lee does teach that a phenyl indole ring can be fused to the positions corresponding to the Xa and Xb of Formula 2 to form a phenyl indolocarbazolyl group (see examples including compound H2-78 in [0036]; and see the part enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above).
Lai discloses an indolocarbazole compound used as used as the host of an phosphorescent light emitting device (Abstract, and Scheme 1).
Lai teaches that indolocarbazole core provides large planar rigid conjugated structure, excellent hole transporting ability, and outstanding morphological stability and thermal stability (page 5549, col. 1, par. 2).
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 Compound H2-7 of Lee by incorporating 1) a triphenyl silyl group and 2) a phenyl indole fused ring, as taught by Lee, Kang, and Lai.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide 1) high triplet energy, thermal and chemical stability, and glass properties, high efficiency, and operational stability, based on the teaching of Kang, and 2) large planar rigid conjugated structure, excellent hole transporting ability, and outstanding morphological stability and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kang and Lai.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
PNG
media_image8.png
322
573
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 and the specific embodiment, Compound 35, meeting all the limitations of claims 14-20.
The modification also provides Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Kang and Lee comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 7-13.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) in view of Kang et al. (“A host material containing tetraphenylsilane for phosphorescent OLEDs with high efficiency and operational stability”, Org. Elec. 2008, vol. 9, page 452-460) and Lai et al. (“m -Indolocarbazole Derivative as a Universal Host Material for RGB and White Phosphorescent OLEDs”, Adv. Func. Mater. 2015, vol. 25, page 5548-5556) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-13, and 14-20 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound Lee as modified by Kang and Lai as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The device does not comprises an electron transport layer comprising the Compound of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of a light emitting element (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [0050]; “2nd mixed region” between “light emitting region” and “electron transporting region” in Fig. 19).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
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 Modified light emitting element of Lee by incorporating a mixed layer between the electron transport layer and the emission layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai and Seo comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), a mixed layer containing the Compound of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the mixed layer is equated with an electron transport layer because the layer can transport electrons.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0047527 A1) in view of Kang et al. (“A host material containing tetraphenylsilane for phosphorescent OLEDs with high efficiency and operational stability”, Org. Elec. 2008, vol. 9, page 452-460) and Lai et al. (“m -Indolocarbazole Derivative as a Universal Host Material for RGB and White Phosphorescent OLEDs”, Adv. Func. Mater. 2015, vol. 25, page 5548-5556) as applied to claims 1-4, 7-13, and 14-20 above, further in view of Ossila (Material information of FIrpic from Ossila, web page address: https://www.ossila.com/products/firpic).
Regarding claim 6, the Light emitting element of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode.
The device emits red light and does not emit white light; however, Lee does teach that a blue emitter can be included in the emission layer such that the light emitting device can emit white light ([0047]).
Ossila teaches that FIrpic is commercially available and provides sky blue emission with high efficiency and peak emission wavelength of 468 nm (page 2)
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 Modified light emitting element of Lee by incorporating a blue light emitting compound FIrpic in the emission layer of the device as taught by Lee and Ossila.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide commercial availability, sky blue emission with high efficiency, based on the teaching of Ossila.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides light emitting element of Lee as modified by Kang, Lai and Ossila comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound C-1 as a first host, Compound of Lee as modified by Kang and Lai as a second host, Compound D-96 as a dopant, and FIrpic as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the device emits a portion of light having peak emission wavelength of 468 nm.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights