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
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments, filed on 5/20/26, have been fully considered but they do not confer patentability on all of the instantly filed claims. Applicants have amended independent claim 1 to require that L5 and L6 are each independently a single bond and B1, L1, and L4 are not a carbazolylene group, R1 and R4 are each not a carbazolyl group, and R5 and R6 are not both a biphenyl group or a naphthyl group at the same time. While these amendments overcome the prior art rejections raised in the previous Office action, further search has led to new prior art rejections as described below.
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 1-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsu et al. (WO 2013/168688). Copies of the original and a machine translation are included with this Office action.
Claims 1-13: Device example 2-7 of Otsu et al. is drawn to a light-emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (PEDOT:PSS), a hole transport layer (a-NPD), an electron blocking layer (compound H1), an emission layer comprising a host and a phosphorescent dopant configured to emit blue light, an electron transport layer (compound ET-8), an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode (pages 30 and 31 of the machine translation and Table 2). Compound H1 has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
88
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 48). As applied to Formula 1, compound H1 has all rings CY1-CY4 equal to unsubstituted benzene rings, n1 equal 0, a5 and a6 equal to zero, a5 and a6 equal to 1, L5 and L6 equal to a single bond, b5 and b6 equal to 1, R5 and R6 equal to phenyl, and c1 through c4 equal to zero. Device example 2-7 of Otsu et al. therefore anticipates all of the device and structural limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3: In compound H1 all rings CY1 through CY4 are a benzene group, thereby anticipating claims 2 and 3.
Claim 4: Compound H1 above also anticipates Formula 1-3 of claim 4 with all variable assignments being described in claim 1 above.
Claim 5: In compound H1, B1 is a single bond which anticipates claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7: In compound H1, all L1-L4 are each a single bond, thereby anticipating claims 6 and 7.
Claims 8 and 9: In compound H1, R1-R4 are equal to hydrogen atoms and R5 and R6 are equal to phenyl groups, thereby anticipating claims 8 and 9.
Claims 10 and 11: Compound 1 of Applicants specification is taught as having a hole mobility of 0.05 cm2/V•s (Table 1). Compound H1 is identical to compound 1 of claim 11. Therefore the limitations of claims 10 and 11 are anticipated by compound H1 of Otsu et al.
Claim 12: The hole transport region of Device example 2-7 of Otsu et al. further comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer as described in claim 1 above. The electron transport region in Device example 2-7 of Otsu et al. comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer as described in claim 1, thereby anticipating claim 12.
Claim 13: The electron blocking layer in device example 2-7 is in direct contact with the emission layer, thereby anticipating claim 13.
Claim 14: The phosphorescent dopant employed in device example 2-7 of Otsu et al. emits blue light, thereby anticipating claim 14.
Claim 18: Device example 2-7 of Otsu et al. is in itself an electronic apparatus, 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 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsu et al. (WO-2013168688).
Claims 15 and 16: Otsu et al. explicitly teaches that the devices taught therein may comprise a plurality of light-emitting layers, which are separated by a charge generation layer (page 3 of the machine translation). Based on this teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have prepared a light-emitting device comprising a plurality of light emitting units which are each separated by a charge generation layer as such embodiments are readily embraced by Otsu et al. The motivation to do so would be to prepare white light-emitting devices. The working examples are drawn to blue-light-emitting devices so it would also have been obvious to have included a blue-light-emitting unit in the stacked white-light-emitting devices taught by Otsu et al.
Claim 17: Otsu et al. explicitly teaches that white light-emitting devices may be prepared comprising a plurality of light-emitting stacks which are separated via a charge generation layer. Otsu et al. further teaches in the device examples, the electron blocking layer is directly located adjacent to the blue light-emitting layer. While Otsu et al. does not explicitly teach that the blue light emitting layer would be located closest to the anode/first electrode in a white light-emitting device, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the blue-light-emission layer closest to the anode, if for no other reason than the fact that blue-emitting materials have the widest bandgap and possess deep HOMO levels and shallow LUMO levels compared to green and red emitting materials. By placing the blue layer directly adjacent to the anode side of the device, abundant hole injection is possible.
Claim 19: Figure 3 of Otsu et al. details a preferred device configuration which includes all of the device limitations of claim 19. The description of Fig. 3 can be found on page 25 of the machine translation. Claim 20: Otsu et al. explicitly teaches that a color filter may be used in combination with the organic electroluminescent devices taught therein and to limit the maximum emission wavelength to at or below 480 nm (page 19 of the machine translation). Given this teaching, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included at least a color filter to the devices taught therein so as to further modulate/regulate the emission color of said devices, thereby satisfying claim 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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
Prosecution Insights