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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 12/05/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 07/06/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the objection to claim 4 is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 14-19 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2020/0295095 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0183493 A1), claims 5 and 20 as being unpatentable over Jeon and Lee as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0340618 A1), claim 7 as being unpatentable over Jeon and Lee as applied above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2017/0256729 A1), and of claims 12 and 13 as being unpatentable over Jeon and Lee as applied above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0350507 A1), are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Claims 14 and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1 and 4 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the LUMO energy levels of the first and second p-dopants being relative values obtained using cyclic voltammetry are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. as failing to comply with the written description requirement have been considered, but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the instant specification expressly discloses embodiments comprising all the limitations of the independent claim along with a rationale for the relative p-dopant LUMO levels and that this is all that is required to satisfy the enablement requirement, Examiner disagrees.
The MPEP (2163) teaches that the requirement for written description for a genus claim, such as the instant independent claim, may be satisfied through description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics (i.e. structure or chemical properties), or by combinations of characteristics sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus.
With respect to “reduction to practice”, the instant description only provides two example devices with such a combination that meets this requirement, and both devices have the same hole transport material/p-dopant combination in each respective hole transport layer and the two p-dopants in these example devices have a difference in stated LUMO value which are close enough to be explained by error.
With respect to “reduction to drawings”, no drawings relevant to suitable host and/or dopant materials are presented in the drawings.
With respect to “identifying characteristics”, the independent claim contains no identifying information for the three host materials, and the only limitations on the two dopants are that they must be p-dopants, and that they must have a certain LUMO energy relationship. This genus comprises hundreds of compounds and thousands of combinations. Further, while the specification contains examples of hole transporting materials and p-dopants that may be suitable for use, the number of examples presented by Applicant is not “representative” for a genus as large as any conceivable hole transport compound and any conceivable p-dopant material.
For at least these reasons, the rejection is respectfully maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 requires a light-emitting device comprising a plurality of hole transporting layers, of which the first HTL comprises a first hole transporting compound and first p-dopant and the second HTL comprises a second hole transporting compound and a second p-dopant, and the absolute value of the LUMO of the second p-dopant is greater than the absolute values of the LUMO of the first p-dopant. These limitations encompass any conceivable p-dopant and any conceivable hole-transport material in the art of organic light-emitting devices as long as the absolute values of the measured LUMO energy value of the p-dopant in the second hole transport layer is greater than the absolute value of the measured LUMO energy value of the p-dopant in the first hole transport layer.
The instant description only provides two example devices with such a combination that meets this requirement, and both devices have the same hole transport material/p-dopant combination in each respective hole transport layer and the two p-dopants in these example devices have a difference in stated LUMO value which are close enough to be explained by error.
The specification further provides exceptionally broad guidance on hole transport materials and p-dopants that could be used to form more embodiments but does not give the LUMO value of any of the other p-dopants nor explain how the LUMO values were measured or what conditions would reproduce those values.
Thus, the limited examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 2-13 and 16-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 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, 6, 8-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2020/0295095 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0255741 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Jeon discloses an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0364 and FIG. 2) comprising a first electrode (210), a second electrode (250), and an interlayer between the electrodes comprising an emission layer (230a) comprising at least one host (paragraph 0228) and a dopant (paragraph 0191), a fourth intermediate layer (instant 3rd hole transport layer, 234, paragraph 0369), a first intermediate layer (instant 2nd HTL, 231), and a first auxiliary layer (instant 1st HTL, 230’), as pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
760
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jeon teaches that the intermediate layer (the layers between the electrodes) functions as a hole injection layer (HIL) and HTL, and that at least one of the HIL and HTL may include a p-dopant (paragraph 0178) and a compound of Formula 201 (paragraph 0138, line 9-11), which is a hole-transport compound (paragraph 0035).
Jeon teaches that when the absolute value of the LUMO energy level of each layer in the hole transport region increases with increasing proximity to the emission layer, the blocking of electrons may be further facilitated or improved (paragraph 0120, paragraph 0121 lines 8-13, and paragraph 0370 lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select p-dopants wherein the absolute value of the LUMO energy level of the dopants increases with increasing proximity to the emission layer in order to facilitate and improve the blocking of electrons, as taught by Jeon.
However, Jeon does not teach nor fairly suggest that the first and second HTLs should contain a p-dopant and the third HTL should not.
In analogous art, Lee discloses an organic light-emitting device (paragraph 0032) with a structure and LUMO energy level relationship according to Fig. 2 (paragraph 0040), which is pictured below to facilitate discussion.
PNG
media_image2.png
566
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this figure, the device comprises a hole injection layer (410), a first hole transport auxiliary layer (431, analogous to the instant 1st HTL), a second hole transport auxiliary layer (432, analogous to the instant 2nd HTL), a hole transport layer (420, analogous to the instant 3rd HTL), and an emission layer (300).
Lee teaches that the first and second hole transport auxiliary layers between the hole injection layer and hole transport layer should comprise a p-dopant in order to increase the number of hole injected into the hole transport layer, so as to improve the hole mobility and the mobile capacity of the emission layer (paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope the first and second hole transport layers in the device of Jeon and leave the third hole transport layer, which is adjacent to the light emitting layer, undoped in order to increase the number of hole injected into the hole transport layer, so as to improve the hole mobility and the mobile capacity of the emission layer, as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 2, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and Jeon also teaches that the device has a hole transport region comprising an electron blocking layer (paragraph 0135).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electron blocking layer into the device as taught by Jeon.
With respect to claim 3, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and Jeon also teaches that the first electrode in an anode, the second electrode is a cathode (paragraph 0363), and the interlayer also comprises an electron transporting region comprising an electron transport layer (paragraph 0277 and 142, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed device structure in the device of Jeon and Lee, as taught by Jeon.
With respect to claim 4, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and Jeon also teaches that the device comprises a blue-light emitting layer (paragraph 0407, lines 7-11).
With respect to claim 6, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and Jeon also teaches that the first dopant may be a fluorescent dopant (paragraph 0275).
With respect to claim 8, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and the second HTL is between the first and third HTLs, as pictured and discussed above.
With respect to claim 9, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and the first HTL faces the first electrode and the third HTL faces the emission layer, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 10, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and Jeon also teaches that the hole transport region may comprise a single material or a plurality of materials (paragraph 0134).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first, second, and third hole transport layers have the same hole transport compound as each other, or have different compounds, as taught by Jeon.
With respect to claim 11, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Jeon also teaches that when the absolute value of the HOMO energy level of each layer in the hole transport region increases with increasing proximity to the emission layer, the injection of holes into the emission layer is facilitated or improved (paragraph 0119, paragraph 0121, lines 1-8, and paragraph 0370, lines 4-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select hole transport compounds wherein the absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the compounds increase with increasing proximity to the emission layer in order to facilitate and improve the injection of holes into the emissive layer, as taught by Jeon.
With respect to claim 16, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and Jeon also teaches that the interlayer comprises an electron blocking layer (paragraph 0136), and the electron blocking layer may be adjacent to the hole transport layer (paragraph 0136, lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an electron blocking layer adjacent to a hole transport layer in the device of Jeon and Lee, as taught by Jeon.
With respect to claim 17, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and Jeon also teaches that any HIL may have a thickness of 100 Å to 1,000 Å and any HTL may have a thickness of about 50 Å to 2,000 Å.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the claimed range of 10 Å to 500 Å overlaps with the range of the prior art, which is 50 Å to 2,000 Å. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, and Jeon also teaches a flat panel apparatus including a thin-film transistor including a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer, and the light-emitting device is electrically coupled to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thing-film transistor (paragraph 0092).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the device into an apparatus with the claimed structure, as taught by Jeon.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2020/0295095 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0255741 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0340618 A1, herein after referred to as Lee ‘618).
With respect to claim 5, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Jeon nor Lee teach nor fairly suggest that the first and/or the second host have both a hole-transporting substituent and an electron-transporting substituent.
In analogous art, Lee ‘618 teaches a luminescent material for an organic optoelectronic device (abstract) which has bipolar characteristics as a result of comprising an electron-accepting substituent and a triphenylene group capable of accepting holes (paragraph 0021).
Lee ‘618 teaches that such a compound is able to appropriately balance the flow of holes and electrons and improve efficiency of an organic optoelectronic device (paragraph 0050) and may be used as a host in the emission layer (paragraph 0161).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bipolar host comprising an electron -transporting substituent and a hole-transporting substituent as the first and/or second host compounds in the device of Jeon and Lee in order to appropriately balance the flow of holes and electrons and improve efficiency of an organic optoelectronic device, as taught by Lee ‘618.
With respect to claim 20, Jeon and Lee teach the apparatus of claim 18, as discussed above.
However, neither Jeon nor Lee teaches nor fairly suggest a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof.
Lee ‘618 teaches that the device may emit white light by laminating colors in a perpendicular direction (paragraph 0048). In this respect, Lee ‘618 teaches a color conversion layer in which the primary colors are combined to change the light emitted into white light.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a color conversion layer in the device of Jeon and Lee in order to produce white light, as taught by Lee ‘618.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2020/0295095 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0255741 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2017/0256729 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 6, as discussed above.
However, neither Jeon nor Lee teach nor fairly suggest that the fluorescent dopant is a thermally-activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) compound.
In analogous art, Wang discloses a compound for an organic optoelectronic device (abstract) which demonstrates TADF properties and may be used as a TADF material in an organic optoelectronic device as a dopant (paragraph 0119, line 6-8) in order to improve luminous efficiency (paragraph 0120).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the TADF compound of Wang as the fluorescent dopant in the emission layer of Jeon and Lee in order to improve luminous efficiency, as taught by Wang.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2020/0295095 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0255741 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0350507 A1).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Jeon and Lee teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Jeon nor Lee teach that, in the first HTL, the difference between the HOMO energy value of the hole transport compound and LUMO energy value of the corresponding p-dopant compound is less than 0.15 eV.
In analogous art, Sun teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an organic layer comprising at least a first compound and a second compound, and the difference between the HOMO energy level of the first compound and the LUMO energy level of the second compound is 0.1 eV or more (paragraph 0144, lines 1-5).
Sun teaches that when the difference between the HOMO energy level of the first compound and the LUMO energy level of the second compound is 0.1 eV or more, charge transfer may easily occur therebetween.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the prior art teaches 0.1 eV or more, and the instant claims are drawn to a range of less than 0.15 eV. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a host and dopant material wherein the HOMO energy level of the hole transporting compound and the LUMO of the p-dopant overlap by less than 0.15 eV in order for charge transfer to easily occur therebetween.
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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights