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 5/19/26, 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 the first layer is in direct contact with the second layer, and further requires that the hole transport region comprises a hole transport layer which does not include a p-dopant which is in direct contact with the first layer. These amendments overcome the previously relied upon prior art rejections. Applicants have also amended the claims to overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections raised in the previous Office action. Further search has led to new prior art rejections, which are 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watabe et al. (US 2024/0324386). Watabe et al. has a foreign application priority date of 7/15/21 which is before Applicants (unperfected) foreign priority date and qualifies as prior art under 102(a)(2)
Claim 1: Light-emitting device 50 of Watabe et al. is comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer comprising compound mmtBumTPoFBi-04, a second hole transport layer comprising compound PCBBiPDBt-02, a third hole transport layer comprising compound mmtBuBiFF, an emission layer comprising two host materials and a green phosphorescent dopant [Ir(ppy)2(mbfpypy-d3)], a hole-blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, a cathode, and a capping layer (Table 14). The hole transport region comprises a first hole transport layer which does not comprise a p-dopant (the first hole transport layer of Watabe et al.), a first layer which comprises an amine-based compound, and a second layer which comprises an amine-based compound. The second amine-based compound is mmtBuBiFF, whose structure is
PNG
media_image1.png
202
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 61) and is comprised of two fluorene moieties which satisfies Condition 1-2 of claim 1.
Claim 4: Table 16 of Watabe et al. teaches that light-emitting device 50 has chromaticity coordinates of 0.22,0.73, making light-emitting device 50 a green-light emitting device, thereby anticipating claim 4.
Claim 5: In device example 50 of Watabe et al., the first layer consists of the first amine-based compound, thereby anticipating claim 5.
Claim 6: While Watabe et al. does not explicitly teach that the lowest excitation triplet energy level of the second amine-based compound, which is mmtBuBiFF, is 2.65 eV or more, it would be expected that this compound would satisfy this limitation based on the structural features present in this compound. Additionally, an energy of 2.65 eV corresponds to a wavelength of approximately 468 nm, which is well above the emission spectrum for mmtBuBiFF.1, meaning that the triplet energy level would be expected to be well above -2.65 eV.
Claim 7: Paragraph 0621 of Watabe et al. teaches that the HOMO energy level of PCBBiPDBt-02 is -5.48 eV, which is less than -4.50 eV, thereby anticipating claim 7.
Claim 8: Paragraph 0621 of Watabe et al. teaches that the HOMO energy level of mmtBuBiFF is -5.33 eV which is less than -4.50 eV, thereby anticipating claim 8.
Claim 9: The fluorene moieties in compound mmtBuBiFF satisfy Formula A of claim 9 with CY1 and CY2 being unsubstituted benzene rings and X1 being a group including C, thereby anticipating claim 9.
Claim 19: Claim 19 serves to further limit an optional embodiment where there is a group of Formula B present. However, because this is not required, Watabe et al. may be properly relied upon to reject claim 19.
Claim 21: Device example 50 as taught by Watabe et al. is inherently an electronic apparatus which anticipates claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-18 and 20 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 10 requires that the light-emitting device satisfies Condition 1-3 which is that both the first and second amine-based compounds comprise two or more fluorene moieties. Watabe et al. does not teach or suggest such devices. Claim 11 is also drawn to embodiments which satisfy Condition 1-3. Claims 12-18 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 11. Claim 20 has been previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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
1 See Fig. 18 of Kubota (US 2022/0328763) which shows the absorption and emission spectrum for mmtBuBiFF.
Prosecution Insights