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)(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 1-6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kambe et al. (US 2023/0126868) as evidenced by Seo et al. (US 2016/0336519, cited on Applicants information disclosure statement, filed on 7/31/25).
Claim 1: Kambe et al. teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer comprising a blue host material and a blue dopant material, a first electron transport layer consisting of compound ET-B, a second electron transport layer consisting of compound ET-B, a third electron transport layer consisting of compound ET-A, an electron transport layer, a cathode, and a capping layer (Example 11 and Table 2). The structure of ET-B is
PNG
media_image1.png
172
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 51) and the structure of ET2 is
PNG
media_image2.png
198
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 48). ET-B is present in the first electron transport layer and is a first compound which comprises a pyrimidine group. ET2 is present in the second electron transport layer and is a second compound which comprises a triazine group. While Kambe et al. does not explicitly teach the LUMO energy levels for these compounds, it is submitted that the LUMO energy level requirements as recited in claim 1 are inherently satisfied. First, triazines are more electron deficient than pyrimidines due to the extra nitrogen atom, meaning that they are better suited at accepting an electron, which in turns lowers the LUMO energy level compared to pyrimidine compounds. One prior art teaching which supports this common knowledge is Seo et al. Specifically, Seo et al. teaches the LUMO energy levels of four pyrimidine based compounds where the LUMO energy levels fall within the 2.78-2.88 eV range and three triazine based compounds where the LUMO energy levels fall within 2.99-3.15 eV. Seo et al. represents one teaching which supports the knowledge readily known to a person having ordinary skill in the art would; that is, triazine rings are more electron deficient than pyrimidine rings, and therefore better electron acceptors, which in turn lowers their LUMO energy levels. Additionally, having two electron transport layers in direct contact with each other where the LUMO gradient goes from low to high (in the direction of cathode to emission layer) creates a staircase energy profile which is free of a single electronically sharp interface where electrons could pile up and cause excitonic quenching or heat buildup. Employing the higher LUMO energy level pyrimidine compound of Kambe et al. with the lower LUMO energy level triazine compound of Kambe et al. achieves this desirable device architecture.
Claim 2: Compound ET-B comprises a pyrimidine group and does not comprise a triazine group and compound ET2 comprises a triazine group and does not comprise a pyrimidine group, thereby satisfying claim 2.
Claim 3: As applied to Formula 1, compound ET-B has a4 and b4 equal to 0, a2 and a3 equal to zero, b2 and b3 equal to 1, R2 and R3 equal to phenyl, a1 equal to 1, L1 equal to phenylene, b1 equal to 1 and R1 equal to a substituted carbazole group. As applied to Formula 1, compound ET2 has a11 and a12 equal to zero, b11 and b12 equal to 1, R11 and R12 equal to phenyl, a13 equal to 1, L13 equal to phenylene, b13 equal to 1 and R13 equal to a diphenyl-substituted anthracene group.
Claim 4: The compounds described in claim 3 above have a linker L, where appropriate, which is selected from phenyl, thereby satisfying claim 4.
Claim 5: All of the R groups, where present, are C6-C14 carbocyclic groups which are substituted with at least one R10a, thereby satisfying claim 5.
Claim 6: Compound ET-B as applied to Formula 1a has b5 and b6 equal to zero, b7 equal to 1, and R7 equal to a substituted carbazole group. Compound ET2 as applied to Formula 2a has b15 and b16 equal to zero, b17 equal to 1, and R17 being a phenylene which is substituted by diphenyl-substituted anthracene group, thereby satisfying claim 6.
Claim 17: The exemplified dopant taught by Kambe et al. is a blue emitter as described in example 11, thereby satisfying claim 17.
Claim 18: The devices taught by Kambe et al. are themselves an electronic apparatus, thereby satisfying 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 1-6, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavicic et al. (US 2025/0126967). Pavicic et al. has a foreign application priority date of 12/14/21 which is before Applicants unperfected foreign priority date. All of the subject matter disclosed in the rejection below is supported by the foreign application EP-21214436.4.
Claim 1: Pavicic et al. teaches organic light-emitting diodes comprising an anode, a cathode, an emission layer, and an electron transport layer stack. The exemplified devices specifically are comprised of an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant, a first electron transport layer, a second electron transport layer, a third electron transport layer, a first electron injection layer, a second electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0521-0530 and Table 5). The first electron transport layer comprises one of the specific compounds A-1 through A-26 as described in Table 1. The third electron transport layer comprises one of the specific compounds B-1 through B-8 as described in Table 3. The second electron transport layer consists of a mixture of one of the compounds A-1 through A-26 and one of the compounds B-1 through B-8.
While none of the exemplified electron transport stacks satisfy the condition that the first electron transport layer comprises a pyrimidine group and the second electron transport layer comprises a triazine group, the overall teachings of Pavicic et al. render obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art such a device architecture. Specifically, the first electron transport material which is present in the first electron transport layer is taught to include those specific compounds recited in Table 1. Out of the compounds A-1 through A-26 as described in Table 1, compounds A-3, A-6, A-12, A-15, and A-25 are compounds which comprise a pyrimidine group. Table 1 also discloses the LUMO energy levels of compounds A-1 through A-26. The absolute value of the LUMO energy levels of compounds A-3, A-6, A-12, A-15, and A-25 are taught to be 1.65 eV, 1.69 eV, 1.77 eV, 1.78 eV, and 1.69 eV, respectively. Out of the compounds B-1 through B-8 as described in Table 3, compounds B-1 and B-2 comprise a triazine group. Table 3 also discloses the LUMO energy levels of compounds B-1 through B-8. The absolute value of the LUMO energy levels of compounds B-1 and B-2 are taught to be 1.90 eV and 1.97 eV, respectively. Therefore the combinations of any one of compounds A-3, A-6, A-12, A-15, and A-25 with either compound B-1 and B-2 satisfies the limitation that the absolute value of the LUMO energy level of the first compound is less than the absolute value of the LUMO energy level of the second compound. The pyrimidine containing compounds shown in Table 1 have a LUMO energy level between 1.65 and 1.78 eV and the triazine containing compounds shown in Table 3 have a LUMO energy level between 1.90 and 1.97 eV. Because Pavicic et al. teaches a relatively small number of first and second materials which are employed in the electron transporting stacks, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily envisaged any one of the combinations of a first compound taught in table 1 and a second compound taught in table 2. One would have been motivated to select various first and second compounds so as to optimize the devices with the reasonable expectation that the various combinations which are taught by Pavicic et al. would perform in a manner suitable to the devices taught therein.
Claim 2: All of the compounds A-3, A-6, A-12, A-15, and A-25 comprise a pyrimidine group and do not comprise a triazine group. Compounds B-1 and B-2 comprise a triazine group and do not comprise a pyrimidine group, thereby satisfying claim 2.
Claim 3: All of the compounds A-3, A-6, A-12, A-15, and A-25 are pyrimidine compounds which satisfy Formula 1 of claim 3. As applied to Formula 1, compound A-3, as one example, has a4 and b4 equal to 0, a2 and a3 equal to zero, b2 and b3 equal to 1, R2 and R3 equal to phenyl, a1 equal to 1, L1 equal to phenylene, b1 equal to 1 and R1 equal to a substituted C6 hereroaryl group (a biphenyl, phenyl, phenyl substituted pyrazine group). Compounds B-1 and B-1 are triazine compounds which satisfy Formula 2 of claim 2. As applied to Formula 2, compound B-1 for example has a11 and a12 equal to zero, b11 and b12 equal to 1, R11 and R12 equal to phenyl, a13 equal to 3, L13 equal to (phenylene)-(anthracenyl)-(phenylene), b13 equal to 1 and R13 equal to -P(=O)(Q11)(Q12) with Q11 and Q12 equal to methyl.
Claim 4: The compounds described in claim 3 above have a linker L, where appropriate, which is selected from phenyl, thereby satisfying claim 4.
Claim 5: All of the R groups, where present, are C6-C14 carbocyclic groups which are substituted with at least one R10a, thereby satisfying claim 5.
Claim 6: Compound A-3 as applied to Formula 1a has b5 and b6 equal to zero, b7 equal to 1, and R7 equal to a substituted pyrazine group. Compound B-1 as applied to Formula 2a has b15 and b16 equal to zero, b17 equal to 1, and R17 being a phenylene-anthracene-phenylene group which is substituted by dimethyl phosphine oxide, thereby satisfying claim 6.
Claim 17: The exemplified dopant taught by Pavicic et al. is a blue emitter as described in table 4, thereby satisfying claim 17.
Claim 18: The devices taught by Pavicic et al. are themselves an electronic apparatus, thereby satisfying claim 18.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavicic et al. (US 2025/0126967) in view of Toguchi et al. (US 2003/0043571) as applied to claims 1 and 18.
Pavicic et al. teaches a light-emitting device as described above. While Pavicic et al. does not teach an electronic apparatus which is driven by a thin-film transistor as required by claim 19, the preparation of such a device would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Toguchi et al. Pavicic et al. and Toguchi et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Toguchi et al. teaches a light-emitting display device which is comprised of a plurality of light-emitting pixels, a power supply to power said pixels, and thin-film transistors which are electrically coupled between the power supply and the organic electroluminescent device (Fig. 14 and claim 21 of Toguchi et al.). The thin-film transistor search to control the conduction between the common power supply and the organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0027). The thin-film transistors are comprised of a source electrode and a drain electrode (paragraph 0115). The thin-film transistor is a critical part of the device architecture which allows for precise current control and active matrix addressing, which would improve the power efficiency in the light-emitting devices taught by Pavicic et al. The combination of Pavicic et al. and Toguchi et al. involves the use of a known element to perform its known function in a known environment to achieve a predictable result. Further, in the field of OLEDs, connecting the source or drain of a driving transistor to a light-emitting load is the standard industry configuration for controlling brightness.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavicic et al. (US 2025/0126967) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0073247) as applied to claims 1 and 18.
While Pavicic et al. does not explicitly teach that the electronic apparatus taught therein further comprises one of the elements recited in claim 20, it is submitted that the inclusion of at least a color filter layer to the electronic apparatus taught by Pavicic et al. would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Yamazaki et al. Pavicic et al. and Yamazaki et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field or organic electroluminescent devices. Yamazaki et al. teaches light-emitting devices which comprise a color filter. Yamazaki et al. teaches that it is often the case that the spectrum of light emitted from a light-emitting element has a broad emission peak which means that the color purity is inferior. Applying a color filter serves to improve the color purity and also the reliability as disclosed in paragraph 0017 of Yamazaki et al. For this reason, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a color filter to the electronic apparatus taught by Pavicic et al., thereby satisfying claim 20.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambe et al. (US 2023/0126868) in view of Toguchi et al. (US 2003/0043571) as applied to claims 1 and 18.
Kambe et al. teaches a light-emitting device as described above. While Kambe et al. does not teach an electronic apparatus which is driven by a thin-film transistor as required by claim 19, the preparation of such a device would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Toguchi et al. Kambe et al. and Toguchi et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Toguchi et al. teaches a light-emitting display device which is comprised of a plurality of light-emitting pixels, a power supply to power said pixels, and thin-film transistors which are electrically coupled between the power supply and the organic electroluminescent device (Fig. 14 and claim 21 of Toguchi et al.). The thin-film transistor search to control the conduction between the common power supply and the organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 0027). The thin-film transistors are comprised of a source electrode and a drain electrode (paragraph 0115). The thin-film transistor is a critical part of the device architecture which allows for precise current control and active matrix addressing, which would improve the power efficiency in the light-emitting devices taught by Kambe et al. The combination of Kambe et al. and Toguchi et al. involves the use of a known element to perform its known function in a known environment to achieve a predictable result. Further, in the field of OLEDs, connecting the source or drain of a driving transistor to a light-emitting load is the standard industry configuration for controlling brightness.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambe et al. (US 2023/0126868) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0073247) as applied to claims 1 and 18.
While Kambe et al. does not explicitly teach that the electronic apparatus taught therein further comprises one of the elements recited in claim 20, it is submitted that the inclusion of at least a color filter layer to the electronic apparatus taught by Kambe et al. would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Yamazaki et al. Kambe et al. and Yamazaki et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field or organic electroluminescent devices. Yamazaki et al. teaches light-emitting devices which comprise a color filter. Yamazaki et al. teaches that it is often the case that the spectrum of light emitted from a light-emitting element has a broad emission peak which means that the color purity is inferior. Applying a color filter serves to improve the color purity and also the reliability as disclosed in paragraph 0017 of Yamazaki et al. For this reason, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a color filter to the electronic apparatus taught by Kambe et al., thereby satisfying claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16 are 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. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest light-emitting device where the first electron transport layer comprises one of the specific compounds recited in claim 7. Similarly, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest light-emitting devices where the second electron transport layer comprises one of the specific compounds recited in claim 8. Claim 9 further requires that the emission layer is comprised of a first host which satisfies one of Formulae 3a and 3b of claim 9, a second host which satisfies one of Formulae 4a and 4b of claim 9, and a dopant. All of the relevant prior art teachings of record rely on a single host material. And while mixed host materials comprising an electron transporting host and a hole transporting host are known in the prior art, there is no invitation provided to a person having ordinary skill in the art to alter the host/dopant systems in the prior art references described above. Doing so requires the use of improper hindsight reconstruction. Claims 10-17 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 9.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
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