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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the application
This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 02/06/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending for this examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 08/09/2023.
Oath/Declaration
The oath or declaration filed on 06/27/2023 is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Species IV (Fig 4): claims 1-18, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 02/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, Species I- to species IV are not directed to patentably distinct species and fails to demonstrate a serious search burden.
The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or non-patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Furthermore, the species require separate classification searches (i.e. H10K50/12 or H10K50/13 or H10K50/156 or H10K50/16 or H10K50/171 or H10K50/19 or H10K2101/30 or H10K85/633 or H10K85/60) such as there are mutually exclusive features, as indicated in office action 07/22/2024 and these mutually exclusive features are categorized in the separate classes.
Additionally, the species require different text searches. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The features of claim 14 such as “wherein the first organic layer or the second organic layer is in contact with the p-type charge generation layer” does not read on elected species IV (Figure 4). Therefore, claim 14 is withdrawn.
This office action considers claims 1-18 are thus pending for prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, The instant claims recite limitation “wherein the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 100 nm; preferably, the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 30 nm; more preferably, the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 20 nm” is not clear because preferably or more preferably appears desirable range. Therefore, sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 20 nm, which is not required based on the desired thickness range. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate corrections defining these limitations within metes and bounds of the claimed invention are required.
Claim Rejection- 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2015/0255741 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of PANG et al (US 2021/0167298 A1; hereafter PANG).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. Lee discloses an organic electroluminescent (Fig [1-2]) device, comprising
an anode (anode 110, Para [ 0032]), a cathode (cathode 220, Para [ 0032]), and a hole transporting region (hole auxiliary layer 400, Para [ 0034]) disposed between the anode (anode 110, Para [ 0032]) and the cathode (cathode 220, Para [ 0032]), wherein the hole transporting region (hole auxiliary layer 400, Para [ 0034]) comprises a first organic layer (first hole transport auxiliary layer 431, Para [ 0043-0045]) and a second organic layer ( second hole transport auxiliary layer 432);
the first organic layer comprises a first p-type dopant (Fig [1-2], first hole transport auxiliary layer 431, Para [ 0045]); the second organic layer comprises a second p-type dopant (Fig [1-2], second hole transport auxiliary layer 432, Para [ 0045]);
the first p-type dopant is different from the second p-type dopant (based on the dopant material such as “quinone derivative, a metal oxide, a cyano-containing compound, or a combination” and amount such as “0.01 to about 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the host”, first p-type dopant can be different from the second p-type dopant Para [ 0044-0045]); and the first organic layer (431) is in contact with the second organic layer (432).
But Lee does not disclose explicitly the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy levels of the first p-type dopant and the second p-type dopant are less than or equal to -4.35 eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, PANG discloses the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy levels of the first p-type dopant and the second p-type dopant are less than or equal to -4.35 eV (Para [0004]).
Since Lee et al and PANG are both from the similar field of endeavor, and PANG discloses using hole transporting layer material doped with a certain proportion of p-type conductive doped material, Therefore, the purpose disclosed by PANG would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Lee et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee in light of PANG teaching “the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy levels of the first p-type dopant and the second p-type dopant are less than or equal to -4.35 eV (Para [0004])” for further advantage such to provide better device performance, such as lifetime improvement and voltage reduction.
Regarding claim 3. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, Lee further disclose wherein the first p-type dopant and the second p-type dopant are molecular p-type dopants (Fig 2, Para [ 0043-0045]).
Regarding claim 4. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, PANG further disclose wherein the LUMO energy level of the first p-type dopant and/or the LUMO energy level of the second p-type dopant are less than or equal to -4.5 eV (Para [0004]); preferably, the LUMO energy level of the first p-type dopant and/or the LUMO energy level of the second p-type dopant are less than or equal to -4.6 eV (Para [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee in light of PANG teaching “wherein the LUMO energy level of the first p-type dopant and/or the LUMO energy level of the second p-type dopant are less than or equal to -4.5 eV (Para [0004]); preferably, the LUMO energy level of the first p-type dopant and/or the LUMO energy level of the second p-type dopant are less than or equal to -4.6 eV (Para [0004])” for further advantage such to provide better device performance, such as lifetime improvement and voltage reduction.
Regarding claim 6. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, Lee further disclose wherein the doping proportion of the first p-type dopant in the first organic layer is the same as or different from the doping proportion of the second p-type dopant in the second organic layer (Para [ 0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 8. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, Lee further disclose wherein the LUMO energy level of the first p-type dopant is less than or equal to the LUMO energy level of the second p-type dopant (Para [ 0054]).
Regarding claim 9. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, Lee further disclose further comprising an emissive layer (emission layer 300, Para [ 0059]) disposed between the anode (anode 110, Para [ 0032]) and the cathode (cathode 220, Para [ 0032]).
Regarding claim 11. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, Lee further disclose wherein the hole transporting region further comprises a third organic layer ( hole transport layer (HTL) 420, Para [ 0065]), and the third organic layer comprises a third p-type dopant ( Para [ 0065]); preferably, the third p-type dopant is the same as or different from the first p-type dopant ( Para [ 0065]) and/or the third p-type dopant is the same as or different from the second p-type dopant ( Para [ 0065]).
Regarding claim 15. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, But Lee do not disclose explicitly wherein the first organic layer further comprises a first organic material, and the second organic layer further comprises a second organic material; the first organic material is the same as or different from the second organic material.
In a similar field of endeavor, PANG discloses wherein the first organic layer further comprises a first organic material, and the second organic layer further comprises a second organic material (Para [ 0113-0120, Table 1]); the first organic material is the same as or different from the second organic material (Para [ 0113-0120, Table 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee in light of PANG teaching “wherein the first organic layer further comprises a first organic material, and the second organic layer further comprises a second organic material (Para [ 0113-0120, Table 1]); the first organic material is the same as or different from the second organic material (Para [ 0113-0120, Table 1])” for further advantage such as high hole mobility and a good stability.
Regarding claim 16. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 15, PANG further disclose wherein the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the first organic material and/or the HOMO energy level of the second organic material are less than -4.5 eV (Para [ 0004]); preferably, the HOMO energy level of the first organic material and/or the HOMO energy level of the second organic material are less than -4.8 eV (Para [ 0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee in light of PANG teaching “wherein the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level of the first organic material and/or the HOMO energy level of the second organic material are less than -4.5 eV (Para [ 0004]); preferably, the HOMO energy level of the first organic material and/or the HOMO energy level of the second organic material are less than -4.8 eV (Para [ 0004])” for further advantage such to provide better device performance, such as lifetime improvement and voltage reduction.
Regarding claim 18. Lee and PANG disclose an electronic assembly, comprising the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1 (Lee, Para [ 0032]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0255741 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of PANG et al (US 2021/0167298 A1; hereafter PANG) as applied claims above and further in view of Seo et al (US 2018/0033993 A1; hereafter Seo).
Regarding claim 2. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, But Lee and PANG do not disclose explicitly wherein the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 100 nm;
preferably, the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 30 nm; more preferably, the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 20 nm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Seo discloses wherein the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 100 nm (Para [ 0346]);
preferably, the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 30 nm; more preferably (Para [ 0346]), the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 20 nm (Para [0346]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee and PANG in light of Seo teaching “wherein the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 100 nm (Para [ 0346]);preferably, the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 30 nm; more preferably (Para [ 0346]), the sum of the thickness of the first organic layer and the thickness of the second organic layer is not greater than 20 nm (Para [0346])” for further advantage such to provide better carrier mobility and enhance device performance with desire thickness for hole transport layer.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0255741 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of PANG et al (US 2021/0167298 A1; hereafter PANG) as applied claims above and further in view of TANAKA et al (US 2024/0147846 A1; hereafter TANAKA).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescence device according to claim 1, But Lee and PANG do not disclose explicitly wherein the first organic layer is in contact with the anode.
In a similar field of endeavor, TANAKA discloses wherein the first organic layer (hole transport zone 6, Para [ 0419]) is in contact with the anode (Fig 2, anode 3, Para [ 0419]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee and PANG in light of TANAKA teaching “wherein the first organic layer (hole transport zone 6, Para [ 0419]) is in contact with the anode (Fig 2, anode 3, Para [ 0419])” for further advantage such as improves the characteristics of the organic EL element, particularly a compound that can achieve a much longer lifetime.
Regarding claim 10. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 9, But Lee and PANG do not disclose explicitly wherein the emissive layer comprises an emissive material, and the emissive material is a phosphorescent material, a fluorescent material or a delayed fluorescent material.
In a similar field of endeavor, TANAKA discloses wherein the emissive layer comprises an emissive material, and the emissive material is a phosphorescent material, a fluorescent material or a delayed fluorescent material (Fig 2, Para [ 0901-0907]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee and PANG in light of TANAKA teaching “wherein the emissive layer comprises an emissive material, and the emissive material is a phosphorescent material, a fluorescent material or a delayed fluorescent material (Fig 2, Para [ 0901-0907])” for further advantage such as improves the characteristics of the organic EL element, particularly a compound that can achieve a much longer lifetime.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0255741 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of PANG et al (US 2021/0167298 A1; hereafter PANG) as applied claims above and further in view of Kim et al (US 2014/0001444 A1; hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 7. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, But Lee and PANG do not disclose explicitly wherein the LUMO energy level of the first p-type dopant is greater than or equal to the LUMO energy level of the second p-type dopant.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein the LUMO energy level of the first p-type dopant is greater than or equal to the LUMO energy level of the second p-type dopant (Para [ 0035, 0078]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee and PANG in light of Kim teaching “wherein the LUMO energy level of the first p-type dopant is greater than or equal to the LUMO energy level of the second p-type dopant (Para [ 0035, 0078])” for further advantage such as improves the characteristics of the organic EL element and enhance carrier mobility of the OLED devices.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0255741 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of PANG et al (US 2021/0167298 A1; hereafter PANG) as applied claims above and further in view of Kim et al (US 2022/0157896 A1; hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 12. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, But Lee and PANG do not disclose explicitly further comprising a charge generation layer, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses further comprising a charge generation layer, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer
(Fig 7, Para [ 0194]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee and PANG in light of Kim teaching “further comprising a charge generation layer, wherein the charge generation layer comprises a p-type charge generation layer (Fig 7, Para [ 0194])” for further advantage such as improves the characteristics of the organic EL element and enhance carrier mobility of the OLED devices.
Regarding claim 13. Lee and PANG in light of Kim discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 12, Kim further discloses wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises the first p-type dopant or the second p-type dopant (Para [ 0194-0200]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee and PANG in light of Kim teaching “wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises the first p-type dopant or the second p-type dopant (Para [ 0194-0200])” for further advantage such as improves the characteristics of the organic EL element and enhance carrier mobility of the OLED devices.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0255741 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of PANG et al (US 2021/0167298 A1; hereafter PANG) as applied claims above and further in view of Voges et al (US 2015/0270506 A1; hereafter Voges).
Regarding claim 17. Lee and PANG disclose the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 15, But Lee and PANG do not disclose explicitly wherein the first organic material and/or the second organic material comprise a monotriarylamine structural unit or a bistriarylamine structural unit;preferably, the first organic material and/or the second organic material comprise any one or more chemical structural units selected from the group consisting of:a monotriarylamine-carbazole structural unit, a monotriarylamine-thiophene structural unit, a monotriarylamine-furan structural unit, a monotriarylamine-fluorene structural unit, a bistriarylamine-carbazole structural unit, a bistriarylamine-thiophene structural unit, a bistriarylamine-furan structural unit, and a bistriarylamine-fluorene structural unit.
In a similar field of endeavor, Voges discloses wherein the first organic material and/or the second organic material comprise a monotriarylamine structural unit or a bistriarylamine structural unit;preferably, the first organic material and/or the second organic material comprise any one or more chemical structural units selected from the group consisting of:a monotriarylamine-carbazole structural unit, a monotriarylamine-thiophene structural unit, a monotriarylamine-furan structural unit, a monotriarylamine-fluorene structural unit, a bistriarylamine-carbazole structural unit, a bistriarylamine-thiophene structural unit, a bistriarylamine-furan structural unit, and a bistriarylamine-fluorene structural unit (Para [ 0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee and PANG in light of Voges teaching “wherein the first organic material and/or the second organic material comprise a monotriarylamine structural unit or a bistriarylamine structural unit;preferably, the first organic material and/or the second organic material comprise any one or more chemical structural units selected from the group consisting of:a monotriarylamine-carbazole structural unit, a monotriarylamine-thiophene structural unit, a monotriarylamine-furan structural unit, a monotriarylamine-fluorene structural unit, a bistriarylamine-carbazole structural unit, a bistriarylamine-thiophene structural unit, a bistriarylamine-furan structural unit, and a bistriarylamine-fluorene structural unit (Para [ 0064])” for further advantage such as improves the characteristics of the organic EL element and enhance carrier mobility of the OLED devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights