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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tasaki et al. (WO 2020/080417). The English language equivalent US 2022/0285625 is relied upon for citation purposes.
Claim 1: Comparative example 11 is drawn to a light-emitting device comprising an anode (ITO), a hole injection layer (HI), a hole transport layer (HT), an electron blocking layer (EBL), an emission region comprising a first emitting layer comprising D-BH-1 as a host and BD-1 as a dopant, a second emitting layer comprising D-BH-2 as a host and BD-1 as a dopant, a hole blocking layer (HBL), an electron transport layer (ET), an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode (Al) (paragraphs 0825 and Table 8). While Comparative example 11 has the D-BH-1 and D-BH-2 in different emission layers, claim 1 is drawn to a light-emitting device comprising a first electrode and a second electrode with an interlayer between the first and second electrodes where the interlayer comprises an emission layer. There is nothing recited in claim 1 which prevents embodiments where more than one emission layer is present where each of the two (or more) emission layers are in direct contact. A device having multiple emission layers in direct contact with each other reads on an interlayer comprising an emission layer as recited in claim 1. Such embodiments may properly be referred to as having an emission layer, where the emission layer is comprised of a first emission sub-layer and a second emission sub-layer. Based on this claim interpretation, the device prepared in comparative example 11 anticipates all of the device limitations with the interlayer comprising an emission layer and wherein the interlayer comprises a first compound represented by Formula 1 (in the first emission layer) and a third compound represented by Formula 1 (in the second emission layer) where the first and third compounds are different from each other. The host compound D-BH-1 has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
122
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the host compound D-BH-2 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
124
164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 616). As applied to Formula 1, D-BH-1 has n11 equal to 1, L11 equal to p-phenylene, Ar11 equal to naphthyl, R11 through R18 equal to deuterium, n12 equal to 1, L12 equal to a single bond, and a1 equal to 0. As applied to Formula 1, D-BH-2 has n11 equal to 1, L11 equal to a single bond, Ar11 equal to naphthyl, R11 through R18 equal to deuterium, n12 equal to 1, L12 equal to a single bond, and a1 equal to 0. As such, comparative device example 11 anticipates all of the device and structural limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3: In compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2, there are no L21 and L22 groups as these groups refer to Formula 2, which is part of an optional embodiment of claim 1. Variables L11 and L12 in compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2 are equal to a single bond or equal to an unsubstituted benzene group, thereby anticipating claim 2, and more specifically equal to a single bond or equal to a group which anticipates formula L(1)-3 of claim 3 with b1 equal to zero.
Claim 4: In compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2, there are no Ar21 groups as these groups refer to Formula 2, which is part of an optional embodiment of claim 1. Variable Ar11 in compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2 are equal to naphthyl, which anticipates claim 4.
Claim 5: In compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2, there are no R21 through R28 groups as these groups refer to Formula 2, which is part of an optional embodiment of claim 1. Variables R11 through R18 in compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2 are equal to deuterium, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claim 6: In compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2, there are no Z2 groups as these groups refer to Formula 2, which is part of an optional embodiment of claim 1. All Z1 groups in compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2 are hydrogen atoms, thereby anticipating claim 6.
Claim 7: Depending on how one assigns the variables in each of compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2, each of these two compounds can anticipate formula 1-1 as well as formula 1-2 of claim 7. This is because both compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2 have 1-naphthyl and 2-naphthyl groups as substituents, thereby anticipating claim 7.
Claim 11: Both compounds D-BH-1 and D-BH-2 satisfy condition (ii) of claim 11 which requires at least one of R11-R18 be equal to deuterium.
Claim 12: Claim 12 serves to further limit an optional embodiment of claim 1. If claim 11 was directly included into independent claim 1, the rejection to Tasaki et al. in claim 1 above would still apply. As such, claim 12 is also rejected.
Claims 14-16: The device architecture of comparative example 11 as described above anticipates the device limitations of claims 14-17. Specifically, the first electrode is an anode, the second electrode is a cathode, and the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region comprising a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron blocking layer, and the interlayer further comprises an electron transporting region comprising a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, which anticipates claim 14. Further, the emission layer comprising a first host compound and a second host compound which both satisfy Formula 1, thereby anticipating condition (ii) of claims 15 and 16. Last, BD-1 is taught by Tasaki et al. as a blue dopant.
Claim 18: Comparative device example 11, by its very nature is an electronic apparatus comprising a light-emitting device, thereby anticipating claim 18.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tasaki et al. (WO 2020/080417) as evidenced by Pan et al. (WO-2025092929).
Compound BD-1 as taught by Tasaki et al. has an maximum emission wavelength of 455 nm as evidenced in Table 2, entry 1 (compound E1-1) of Pan et al. (page 38). The structure of compound E1-1 is shown by Pan et al. on page 40 and it is the same as compound BD-1 of Tasaki et al. Therefore comparative example 11 of Tasaki et al. anticipates claim 17.
Claims 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2021/107742). The English language equivalent US 2023/0092585 is relied upon for citation purposes.
Claims 1 and 14-16: Kim et al. teaches organic light-emitting devices. Device examples 95-99 are drawn to light-emitting devices which are comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a hole blocking layer, an emission layer comprising two blue host compounds, a blue dopant compound, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraph 0964-0967 and Table 2). Device examples 95-99 anticipate all of the device limitations of claim 1 as well as claims 14-16. For example, device example 95 comprises BH-1 which has the structure
PNG
media_image3.png
208
130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and BH-47 which has the structure
PNG
media_image4.png
208
110
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Compound BH-1 in device example 95 anticipates Formula 2 of claim 1 and compound BH-47 anticipates Formula 1 of claim 1, which satisfies condition (i) as recited in claim 1. As applied to Formula 1, compound BH-1 has X1 equal to O, R11-R18 equal to deuterium atoms, n11 and n12 equal to 1, L11 and L12 equal to single bonds, a1 equal to 7 and all Z1 equal to deuterium atoms, and Ar11 equal to a deuterated naphthyl group. As applied to Formula 2, compound BH-47 has R21-R28 equal to deuterium atoms, n21 and n22 equal to 1, L21 and L22 equal to single bonds, a2 equal to 7 and all Z2 equal to deuterium atoms, and Ar21 equal to a deuterated phenyl group. In summary, device example 95 anticipates all of the device and structural limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3: As described in claim 1 above, L11, L12, L21, and L22 are equal to single bonds which also anticipates claims 2 and 3.
Claim 4: In compound BH-1, Ar11 is a naphthyl group and Ar21 is a phenyl group, thereby anticipating claim 4.
Claim 5: As described in claim 1 above, all R11-R18 and R21-R28 groups are equal to deuterium atoms, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claim 6: As described in claim 1 above, all Z1 and Z2 groups are equal to deuterium atoms, thereby anticipating claim 6.
Claim 7: For claim 7, device example 97 is relied upon. In device example 97, both the first host and second host are compounds which are different and which both satisfy Formula 1-1 with all other device limitations being identical to device example 95 as described in claim 1 above. Compound BH-41 has the structure
PNG
media_image5.png
230
112
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and compound BH-47 has the structure
PNG
media_image6.png
216
108
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. Each of these compounds have naphthyl groups bonded at both types of positions recited in formulae 1-1 and 1-2 of claim 7 and depending on how the variables are applied, each of BH-41 and BH-47 anticipate both formulae 1-1 and 1-2. As one example, in Formula 1-1, BH-41 has all R groups equal to deuterium atoms, n12 equal to 1, L12 equal to a direct bond, a1 equal to 7, all Z1 equal to deuterium atoms, n11 equal to 1, L11 equal to a deuterated p-phenyl group, and Ar11 equal to a deuterated naphthyl group. This same compound anticipates Formula 1-2 of claim 7 with n11 and n12 equal to 1, L12 equal to a deuterated p-phenyl group and L11 equal to a direct bond. The same applies to compound BH-47.
Claim 8: In device example 95, compound BH-1 anticipates Formula 2-4 of claim 8 with all variable assignments being described in claim 1 above.
Claim 9: In device example 95, compound BH-1 anticipates Formula 2A-4 of claim 9 with a21 equal to 3, a22 equal to 4, all Z21 and Z22 groups equal to deuterium atoms, and all other variables being described in claim 1 above.
Claim 10: Compound BH-1 comprises a group which anticipates Formula 2B-15 of claim 10 with X1 equal to O and Z23-Z26 equal to deuterium.
Claim 11: Compound BH-47 in device example 95 anticipates each condition (i) through (vi) of claim 11 as all available hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium atoms.
Claim 12: Compound BH-1 in device example 95 anticipates each condition (i) through (vi) of claim 11 as all available hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium atoms.
Claim 17: Kim et al. teaches that the light-emitting layers taught therein emit blue light having a wavelength within 400-500 nm (paragraph 0356). This range anticipates the about 410 nm to about 490 nm since “about” would include values slightly above and below this range.
Claim 18: Device examples 95-99, by their very nature are an electronic apparatus comprising a light-emitting device, thereby anticipating claim 18.
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 of this title, 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.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021/107742), further in view of Choi et al. (US 2022/0223791).
While Kim et al. does not explicitly teach preparing an electronic apparatus which further comprises a thin-film transistor (TFT) comprising a source electrode and a drain electrode where at least one of the source and drain electrodes are electrically connected to the first electrode of the light-emitting device as recited in claim 19 or that the electronic apparatus further comprises a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof as recited in claim 20, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found such apparatus obvious given the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and in view of Choi et al. Kim et al. and Choi et al. are combinable as they are both from the field of organic electroluminescent devices. It is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that the devices taught by Kim et al., while exemplified as a single emission unit (that is, having one pixel), would necessarily be comprised of a plurality of pixels when preparing a light-emitting display. Fig. 2 of Choi et al. is drawn to a display device according to the teachings therein. This display architecture of Fig. 2 is a very well-known, tried and true display architecture. Fig.2 is drawn to a display device comprising a thin-film transistor (TFT) which is electrically coupled to the light-emitting device and the TFT is what drives each individual light-emitting pixel. The device architecture shown in Fig. 2 is critical for controlling individual pixels in a display device. Therefore, in preparing a display device according to Kim et al., it would have been obvious to have employed a device architecture as described in Fig. 2 of Choi et al. for the reasons described above. Regarding claim 20, Choi et al. explicitly teaches that the light-emitting device described in Fig. 2 may further comprise a polarizing plate to reduce reflection of external light (paragraph 0062 of Choi et al.). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included a polarizing plate so as to reduce reflection of external light, thereby satisfying claim 20. While not required to reject claim 20, Choi et al. also explicitly teaches color filters (paragraph 0127) and color conversion layers (paragraph 0148), and why they are important components in OLED devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 13 is directed to a device embodiment where the first compound is selected from any one of the five compounds A1 through A5 and the second compound is selected from any one of the five compounds B1 through B5. While the prior art teaches light-emitting devices having a mixed host, including those where the mixed host is comprised of two different compounds which satisfy condition (ii) of claim 1 and where the mixed host is comprised of a compound of formula 1 and a compound of formula 2, which satisfies condition (i) of claim 1, the structural specificity of the two sets of five compounds is such, that only through the use of improper hindsight reconstruction would such combinations be envisaged. Further, device examples 1-10 as taught in Applicants specification employs various combinations of compounds A1-A5 with B1-B5 and have shown that only through the combined use of a compound A1 through A5 with a compound B1 through B5 are excellent driving voltages, current efficiencies, and LT97 lifetimes acheived.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766