DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 07/20/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The objection to Claims 16-32 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/21/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to Claim 21 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/21/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 16-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2020/0185616 A1) in view of Helber et al. (US 2006/0093856 A1) and Duan et al. (CN 110407859 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 04/21/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 16-20 and 22-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2020/0185616 A1) in view of Helber et al. (US 2006/0093856 A1) and Dück (WO 2020/135953 A1).
Regarding Claims 16-20, 24, 25, and 28-32, Baek et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device:
PNG
media_image1.png
508
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 8) comprising anode (410), hole-injecting layer (440), hole-transporting layer (450), electron-blocking layer (455), first light-emitting layer (EML1) (462), second light-emitting layer (EML2) (464), hole-blocking layer (475), electron-transporting layer (470), electron-injecting layer (480), and cathode (420); the first light-emitting layer comprises a first host and first and second delayed fluorescent dopants (i.e., TADF materials), and the second light-emitting layer comprises a second host and first fluorescent dopant ([0143]); additional fluorescent dopant can be present in the (second) light-emitting layer (comprising a plurality of layers) ([0171]). The first fluorescent dopant is a fluorescent material with a narrow FWHM ([0126]); a variety materials can be used ([0128]-[0129]). The delayed fluorescent dopants transfer energy to the fluorescent dopant(s) of the second light-emitting layer for emission ([0149]). One of the (emitting) light-emitting layers may emit green light, while the other emits blue light ([0190]). The light-emitting layer can be at 25 nm (which inherently comprises sublayers of less than 10 nm) ([0248]); the organic layers are formed via methods such as vacuum deposition ([0247]). Any one of the first and/or second host include compounds such as the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
282
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(mCBP) (host material) ([0150]). Notice that the light-emitting layer can be defined to include the second light-emitting layer (464) and an adjacent portion of the first light-emitting layer (462) (comprising TADF materials) of some arbitrary thickness; the remaining portion of the first light-emitting layer can be defined as the exciton management layer (notice the term “layer” as recited in the claims is broad, and can be reasonably interpreted as being merely a thickness of some arbitrary composition). However, Baek et al. does not explicitly disclose 1) TTA material nor 2) a FWHM emitter as recited in Claim 16.
Regarding point 1, Helber et al. discloses compounds such as the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
348
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 19) (TTA material) such that A1 = hydrogen and Ar = C10 aryl (naphthyl) of Applicant’s Formula 4 which are taught to be part of a class of “useful host materials” in an organic EL device for blue or green (among others) emission ([0120]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Helber et al. (above) into any of the light-emitting layers (including as second host) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Baek et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Helber et al., which teaches such compounds to be useful host materials capable of support blue or green electroluminescence. However, Baek et al. in view of Helber et al. does not explicitly disclose a FWHM emitter as recited in Claim 1.
Dück discloses emitting compounds with an emission maxima between 420-520 nm with high efficiencies characterized by narrow FWHM of the main peak of (preferably) less than 0.25 eV, the use of which results in organic EL devices with higher stabilities compared with devices comprising known emitter materials (pages 1, 29-30). The compounds are of the following form:
PNG
media_image4.png
306
284
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 1); various embodiments are disclosed, including the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
209
140
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 37) (which can be suitably tuned during the normal course of experimentation, as guided by the scope of Dük’s general formula and the desired photophysical properties of the emitting compound). It would have been obvious to incorporate any of the emitting compounds as disclosed by Dük (including compounds with an emission maximum 510-520 nm with a FWHM of the main emission peak of less than 0.25 eV as disclosed above) into the second light-emitting layer (light-emitting layer) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Baek et al. in view of Helber et al. (as the first fluorescent dopant). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Dük et al. which teaches that the use of its emitting compounds results in devices with higher stabilities.
It is also the position of the Office that the photophysical limitations as recited in the claims would inherently be met by the construction as disclosed by Baek et al. in view of Helber et al. and Dük. Notice that the compound as disclosed by Helber et al. is identical to the Applicant’s preferred TTA material as shown on page 15 of the present national phase publication, while the host material as disclosed by Baek et al. (mCBP) (host material) is identical to the Applicant’s preferred host material as shown on page 113 of the present national phase publication.
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Baek et al. discloses an alternative organic EL device embodiment comprising an additional light-emitting layer (upper EML) comprising an iridium-based phosphorescent dopant material (in combination with host material) (which can be considered part of an organic layer comprising the light-emitting layer described above) ([0197]).
Regarding Claims 26 and 27, Baek et al. discloses first and second delayed fluorescent dopants (i.e., TADF materials) of the following form, respectively:
PNG
media_image6.png
224
416
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0096]); embodiments include cyano-containing compounds such as the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
362
412
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 15). However, Baek et al. (in view of Helber et al. and Dük et al.) does not explicitly disclose the TADF material as recited in the claims. Nevertheless, it is the position of the Office that the production of a TADF from the disclosure of Baek et al. to read on the photophysical limitations as recited in the claims can easily be met. The motivation is provided by the fact it has been long established that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see also MPEP 2144.05). Helber et al. and Dük et al. discloses the host and FWHM materials, respectively, as preferred by the Applicant (see above); Baek et al. discloses a wide range of first and second delayed fluorescent dopants encompassed by Chemical Formulae 1 and 2 which can be appropriately tuned via the selection of the appropriate chemical groups (which would inherently raise or lower lowermost excited state triplet state energy level (E(T1E)) values) ([0097]-[0101]). Hence, the production of a TADF material during the normal course of experimentation that would read on the recited claims would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2020/0185616 A1) in view of Helber et al. (US 2006/0093856 A1) and Dück (WO 2020/135953 A1) as applied above and in further view of Duan et al. (CN 110407859 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication CN 110407859 A (herein referred to as “Duan et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Baek et al. in view of Helber et al. and Dück discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device of Claim 20 as shown above. Baek et al. discloses that the first light-emitting layer (462) (part of the exciton management layer as defined above) comprises a first host and first and second delayed fluorescent dopants (i.e., TADF materials). However, Baek et al. in view of Helber et al. and Dück does not explicitly disclose the “at lest one additional emitter” as recited in the claim.
Duan et al. discloses delayed fluorescent materials such as the following:
PNG
media_image8.png
142
118
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 24 of Duan et al.) (additional emitter) as delayed fluorescent material for green (or yellow) light ([0042]); the use results in an organic EL device with low start-up volage and high luminous efficiency ([0040]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Duan et al. (above) into the first light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Baek et al. in view of Helber et al. and Dück (as first or second delayed fluorescent dopant). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Duan et al., which teaches its inventive compound as viable delayed fluorescent materials in an identical field of invention, the use of which results in a device with low start-up voltage and high luminous efficiency.
It is further the position of the Office that the photophysical limitations in regards to the “at least one emitter” as recited in the claim would inherently be met by the compounds as disclosed by Duan et al. (above). Notice C-197 of Duan et al. is identical to the Applicant’s preferred small FWHM emitter as shown on page 217 of the present national phase publication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
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 JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
