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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 10-12, 22-23, and 26-29 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 03/27/2026. Claims 1-38 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objections to claims 4-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 23-27 as set forth in the previous Office Action are not overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 03/27/2026.
The rejection of claim 5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 9, 11, 22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 7-8, 12, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 13-14 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim (US 2015/0311451 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim and Lee (US 2017/0117329 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim and Lee ‘919 (US 2017/0330919 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim and Zhang (US 2021/0351370 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 29-33 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim ‘159 and Kitamura (US 2010/0314613 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim ‘159 and Montenegro is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim ‘159 and Pflumm (US 2011/0095282 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Kim ‘159 and Lee ‘086 (US 2015/0123086 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, 18, 22, 25-26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 4, 6, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma and Ma ‘273 (US 2023/0272273 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 5, 12, 24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma and Wang (English translation of CN 112010759 obtained from Global Dossier) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 14 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma and Hwang (US 2008/0286606 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma and Lee (US 2014/0117329 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma, Hwang, and Lee ‘919 (US 2017/0330919 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma, Hwang, and Shitagaki (US 2009/0102368 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 29-33 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma, Kim ‘159, and Kitamura is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma, Kim ‘159, and Montenegro is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma, Kim ‘159, and Pflumm is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe in view of Ma, Kim ‘159, and Lee ‘086 is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-28 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of co-pending application No. 17/809,819 is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-18, 22, and 25-28 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,497,348 is not overcome due to the Applicant’s reply dated 03/27/2026. The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 1-14 of the reply dated 03/27/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-38 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 1-4, Applicant argues the cited reference Dong fails to teach the claims as amended which do not allow for C1 and C2 to each be a bicycloheptanyl group.
Examiner's response –While Dong alone fails to teach the claims as amended, the newly cited reference Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) provides motivation to modify Dong’s compound with an adamantyl group. Accordingly, Dong in view of Jeong meet the claims as amended.
Applicant's argument –On pages 3-13, Applicant argues the claimed embodiments exhibit unexpected results over the prior art. Applicant points to Examples 1 to 34 and Comparative Examples 1 to 14 for support. Specifically, Applicant points out that Comparative Compound C4 is identical to compound 100 of Watabe. Comparative Compound C4 is used in Comparative Example 3.
Examiner's response –Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires at least the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
With respect to prior art reference Dong
Comparison with closest prior art
Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. The device examples of the instant specification comprise different device structure and materials than the devices of Dong.
For example, Dong teaches Compound 315 which includes two bicycloheptanyl groups in the location of the claimed C1 and C2 and a dibenzofuran in the location of the claimed M. In contrast, none of the comparative compounds C1 to C11 comprise two bicycloheptanyl groups in the location of the claimed C1 and C2 and a dibenzofuran in the location of the claimed M (see structures on pg. 12 of the remarks). Similarly, no inventive compounds used in the example devices comprise a dibenzofuran in the location of the claimed M (see structures on pgs. 10-11 of the remarks).
As the devices of Applicant and the devices of Dong comprise different structure and materials, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
With respect to the device structure, Dong teaches devices having the following structure and materials (see bottom of pg. 16 to beginning of pg. 17).
Anode: ITO
Hole injection layer: HI1 and HATCN
Hole-transport layer: compound of Formula I
Light-emitting layer: BH2 and 3% BD2
Electron transport layer: Alq3:Liq
Electron injection layer: LiF
Cathode: Mg:Ag
The instant devices of the instant specification include the following (instant ¶ [00510]-[00512]):
Anode: ITO
Hole injection layer: 2-TNATA
Hole transport layer: compound of Formula 1
Emission layer: DNA and DPAVBi
Electron transport layer: Alq3
Electron injection layer: Li
Cathode: Al
As shown above, the devices of the instant specification contain different layer materials as compared to the device of Dong. Applicant has not provided an explanation regarding this difference. It is unclear if the device comprising the same structure and materials of Dong that also contain compounds of the claimed Formula 1 would obtain the results as discussed by Applicant.
As the devices of Applicant and the devices of Dong comprise different structure and materials, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Commensurate in Scope
As claim 1 claims a broad device structure including any materials but the devices discussed in the instant specification only recite one specific device structure and materials (see instant ¶ [00510]-[00512]), the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, as discussed above, the prior art teaches different device structure and materials than the instant specification. The structures and materials discussed in the prior art are within the claim scope of the instant application. As there are no results comprising the structures and materials of the prior art, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present.
With respect to prior art reference Watabe
Comparison with closest prior art
Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art. As shown by the structures below, the closest inventive compound to Watabe’s compound 100 is inventive compound 995.
100:
PNG
media_image1.png
236
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
995:
PNG
media_image2.png
347
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown by the structure above, Watabe’s compound 100 comprises a cyclohexane group in the location of the claimed C1 and compound 995 comprises an adamantyl group in the location of the claimed C1. Cyclohexane in the location of the claimed C1 is within the scope of the claimed Formula 1. As no explanation is provided for compounds having these different groups it is unclear if a comparison between compounds comprising the same structure of Watabe’s compound 100 (i.e., a cyclohexane group in the location of the claimed C1) that also comprises a bicycloheptanyl group in the location of the claimed C2 would obtain the same results discussed by Applicant. Accordingly, a comparison of the closest prior art has not been made.
Additionally, it should also be noted that a comparison to the closest prior art has not been made with respect to the device of Comparative Examples 11 and 14 (which comprise Comparative Compound C4). As shown in Table 2 in the remarks on pgs. 9-10, Comparative Example 11 comprises a first hole transport layer of Comparative Compound C4, a second hole transport layer of Compound A13, and a third hole transport layer of Comparative Compound C4. Likewise, Comparative Example 14 comprises a first hole transport layer of Comparative Compound C4, a second hole transport layer of Compound A33, and a third hole transport layer of Comparative Compound C4. In contrast, inventive Example 33 comprises a first hole transport layer of Compound 995, a second hole transport layer of Compound A13, and a third hole transport layer of Compound 995. As Comparative Examples 11, 14, and Example 33 comprise different third hole transport layers, it is unclear how much the degree of device improvement may be attributed to the use of inventive Compound 995 over Comparative Compound C4. Accordingly, Applicant has not made a comparison to the closest prior art.
As the comparative and inventive devices of Applicant comprise different structure and materials, and as the devices of Applicant comprise different compounds than the compounds of Watabe, a comparison is not being made to the closest prior art. Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. MPEP 716.02(e).
Commensurate in Scope
As discussed below and in the previous rejection, Watabe’s compound includes a cyclohexane group in the location of the claimed C1, and a methyl-substituted fluorene group in the location of the claimed M. These are within the scope of the claims. As there are no results comprising the structures and materials of the prior art, it is unclear if the same results discussed by Applicant would be present.
Applicant's argument –On pages 13-14, Applicant requests the double patenting rejections be withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner's response –As the amendments do not overcome the double patenting rejections and no terminal disclaimers have been filed, the double patenting rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 23-27 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 4-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 23-27 include blurry formulae.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 and 28 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 28 recite compounds 877-880, 901-904, 929-932, 965-968, 1035-1054 and 1063-1066 which read on the claimed Formula 1 wherein C1 and C2 are each represented by a bicycloheptanyl group. However, claims 1 and 22 (of which claims 12 and 22 depend upon) recites the newly added proviso that requires at least one selected from among C1 and C2 is a substituted or unsubstituted adamantyl, cyclohexyl, bicyclooctanyl, or triphenylsilyl. Since compounds 877-880, 901-904, 929-932, 965-968, 1035-1054 and 1063-1066 do not satisfy the proviso, it is unclear how compounds 877-880, 901-904, 929-932, 965-968, 1035-1054 and 1063-1066 read on the amended claim. For purposes of examination, compounds 877-880, 901-904, 929-932, 965-968, 1035-1054 and 1063-1066 will be interpreted as not present.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed above with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claims 12 and 28, compounds 877-880, 901-904, 929-932, 965-968, 1035-1054 and 1063-1066 do not properly depend from the formula recited in claims 1 and 22. If compounds 877-880, 901-904, 929-932, 965-968, 1035-1054 and 1063-1066are selected, they do not satisfy all the requirements of Formula 1. Thus claims 12 and 28 do not properly depend from claims 1 and 22.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-12, 22, 25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 9, 11, 22, and 27, Dong teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an aromatic amine compound represented by Formula I, wherein the device obtains good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long life (beginning of pg. 2). Dong teaches examples of such devices including Device 9 including a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer of compound 315, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and electron injection layer, and a cathode (beginning of pg. 17 and beginning of pg. 18; see structure on pg. 16).
I:
PNG
media_image3.png
311
181
media_image3.png
Greyscale
315:
PNG
media_image4.png
277
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 315 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it comprises two bicycloheptanyl groups. However, Dong teaches Ar may be selected from a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C60 aryl (middle of pg. 2).
Jeong teaches an OLED having excellent properties such as low voltage and high efficiency by using an adamantane derivative compound represented by Formula 1, wherein A is a substituted or unsubstituted adamantyl group (abstract; ¶ [0015]-[0018]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include the compound below on pg. 8.
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
88
244
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jeong’s compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
263
315
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Compound 315 reads on Jeong’s Formula 1 except for wherein it does not contain an adamantyl group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one of the bicycloheptanyl groups with an adamantyl group, as shown in Jeong’s compound, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with excellent properties such as low voltage and high efficiency, as taught by Jeong.
The modified compound 315 reads on Jeong’s Formula I wherein: R1 is the adamantyl structure and R2 is not required to be present; R3 is H and b is 6; a is 0; L1 is a c12 arylene; L2 is a single bond; Ar is a substituted c12 aryl; and X1 is O and X2 is a single bond (see Jeong, middle of pg. 2). Accordingly, the modified compound 315 is expected to obtain the benefits of Jeong.
The modified compound 315 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
modified 315:
PNG
media_image7.png
421
654
media_image7.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image8.png
173
256
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 315 reads on the claimed Formulas 1 and 8-2 (claims 1 and 22) wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted arylene group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms;
La is a direct linkage;
C1 is an unsubstituted bicycloheptanyl group (Formula 7-2) and C2 is an adamantyl group (Formula 7-7) (claim 9);
M is represented by Formula 1-c;
Z is O; and
R3 is hydrogen and n3 is an integer of 7.
Additionally, the modified compound 315 reads on the claimed Formula 9-1 (claims 11 and 27).
Regarding claims 7-8, 12, 25, and 28, Dong in view of Jeong teach Device 9 including a hole transport layer comprising the modified compound 315, as described above with respect to claim 13.
modified 315:
PNG
media_image7.png
421
654
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 315 fails to include phenyl groups rather than biphenyl groups between the cycloalkyl groups (bicycloheptanyl and adamantyl) and the nitrogen atom. However, Dong does teach L1 may be an unsubstituted C6 arylene and Ar may be a substituted C6 aryl, wherein examples thereof include phenyl (middle of pg. 2; beginning of pg. 3). Dong teaches examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 wherein a phenyl group is provided between the cycloalkyl group and the nitrogen atom, including compound 102 (pg. 7).
PNG
media_image9.png
171
115
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Dong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the biphenyl groups in the modified compound 315 with phenyl groups, as shown in Compound 102, because Dong teaches L1 may be an unsubstituted C6 arylene and Ar may be a substituted C6 aryl. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as in the hole transport layer of the device of Dong and possess the benefits taught by Dong above. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
The modified compound 315 reads on the claimed compound 1005 (claims 12 and 28) and thus further reads on the claimed Formulas 5-1 and 6-1 (claims 7-8 and 25).
Claims 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2015/0311451 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 18-19, Dong in view of Jeong teach Device 9 including a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer of the modified compound 315, and a light-emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 13.
Dong fails to teach the device includes another layer between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer.
Kim teaches an electron blocking layer (EBL) may be included between an emission layer (EML) and a hole transport layer (HTL) of an organic light-emitting device, and the EBL may help to improve the lifespan of the device (¶ [0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electron blocking layer between the hole transport layer and the light-emitting layer in Dong’s Device 9, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the lifespan of the device, as taught by Kim.
The resulting device sequentially comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer of the modified compound 315, an electron blocking layer, and a light-emitting layer.
Per claim 13, holes are transported from the anode to the emission layer (see Kim, ¶ [0008]), and thus holes are transported through the electron blocking layer. Accordingly, the electron blocking layer may be considered a hole transport layer. Thus, in the device of Dong in view of Kim, the hole transport layer (comprising compound 315) reads on the claimed first hole transport layer and the electron blocking layer reads on the claimed second hole transport layer.
Per claims 18-19, holes are transported from the anode to the emission layer (see Kim, ¶ [0008]). As such, holes are transported through the hole injection layer and the electron blocking layer, and thus both layers may be considered hole transport layers. Accordingly, in the device of Dong in view of Jeong and Kim, the hole injection layer reads on the claimed hole transport layer, the hole transport layer (comprising compound 315) reads on the claimed first hole transport auxiliary layer, and the electron blocking layer reads on the claimed second hole transport auxiliary layer.
Regarding claim 14, Dong in view of Jeong and Kim teach the modified Device 9 including a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer of the modified compound 315, an electron blocking layer, and a light-emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 13.
Dong in view of Jeong and Kim fail to teach the hole injection layer and the electron blocking layer include compound 315. However, Dong teaches one or more organic layers may include the aromatic amine compound of Formula 1, and at least one layer of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a hole auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer includes the aromatic amine compound of Formula 1 (bottom half of pg. 13). Additionally, the aromatic amine compound of Formula 1 has good hole transport capacity, high glass transition temperature and thermal stability, good film-forming property, and simple synthesis, and provides a device with good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long life (first half of pg. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the modified compound 315 in both the hole injection layer and the electron blocking layer, because Dong teaches the aromatic amine compound may be included in these layers, and this would have been combining the prior art elements of Dong according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device with good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long life, as taught by Dong. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Additionally, forming the hole injection layer and electron blocking layer with the compound 315 would provide a material good hole transport capacity, high glass transition temperature and thermal stability, good film-forming property, and simple synthesis, as described above.
Accordingly, as holes are transported through the hole injection layer, the hole injection layer reads on the claimed first hole transport layer, and the hole transport layer reads on the claimed second hole transport layer, and the electron blocking layer reads on the claimed third hole transport layer. As discussed above, each of the hole injection layer, the hole transport layer, and the electron blocking layer comprise the modified compound 315.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) and Kim (US 2015/0311451 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2014/0117329 A1).
Regarding claims 15-17, Dong in view of Jeong and Kim teach the device including a hole transport layer (first hole transport layer) and an electron blocking layer (second hole transport layer), wherein the hole transport layer includes the modified compound 315, as described above with respect to claim 13.
Dong in view of Jeong Kim fail to teach the electron blocking layer includes an amine derivative represented by the claimed Formula 10.
Lee teaches an amine-based compound represented by Formula 1 for use in an organic layer of an organic light-emitting device, wherein examples thereof include Compound 1 (abstract; ¶ [0010]; pg. 27). The amine-based compound has improved thermal stability and provides the device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime (¶ [0046]-[0047]). Lee teaches an example of such a device in Example 1 wherein Compound 1 is used to form the organic layer (¶ [0324]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Compound 1 in the electron blocking layer in the device of Dong in view of Jeong and Kim, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide material with high thermal stability, and a device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime, as taught by Lee.
Compound 1 is identical to the claimed compound A27 (claim 17) and is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 10 (claim 15).
1:
PNG
media_image10.png
273
263
media_image10.png
Greyscale
10:
PNG
media_image11.png
204
404
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 reads on the claimed Formula 10 wherein:
L1 is a direct linkage;
R11, R13, and R14 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, and R12 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms;
R15 to R18 are each a hydrogen atom; and
n11 and n14 are each 4 and n12 and n13 are each 3.
Additionally, Compound 1 reads on the claimed Formula 11-2 (claim 16).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) and Kim (US 2015/0311451 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Lee ‘919 (US 2017/0330919 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Dong in view of Jeong and Kim teach the device including a hole transport layer (first hole transport auxiliary layer) and an electron blocking layer (second hole transport auxiliary layer), wherein the hole transport layer includes the modified compound 315, as described above with respect to claim 19.
Dong in view of Jeong and Kim are silent as to the refractive index of the hole transport layer and the electron blocking layer.
Lee ‘919 teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising a hole transport layer, wherein the hole transport layer may have a refractive index in a range of 1.0 to 1.6 in the blue wavelength region (e.g., about 450 nm) (abstract; ¶ [0058] and [0081]). By using a hole transport layer with a relatively low refractive index, the light-emitting efficiency is improved (¶ [0107]).
Therefore, as hole are transported through both the hole transport layer and the electron blocking layer and thus may both be considered hole transport layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hole transport layer and the electron blocking layer of the device of Dong in view of Jeong and Kim such that the layers have a refractive index in a range of 1.0 to 1.6 in the blue wavelength region, based on the teaching of Lee ‘919. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve light-emitting efficiency, as taught by Lee ‘929.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) and Kim (US 2015/0311451 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2021/0351370 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Dong in view of Jeong and Kim teach the device including a hole transport layer (first hole transport auxiliary layer) and an electron blocking layer (second hole transport auxiliary layer), wherein the hole transport layer includes the modified compound 315, as described above with respect to claim 19.
Dong in view of Jeong and Kim are silent as to the HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer being greater than the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer.
Zhang teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, and a light emitting layer, wherein the HOMO energy of the electron blocking layer is between that of the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer (i.e., higher than that of the hole transport layer) and the LUMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is shallower than that of the hole transport layer and light emitting layer (abstract; ¶ [0017] and [0037]). This allows for a better balance of carriers and prolongs the lifespan of the device (¶ [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electron blocking layer and hole transport layer of the device of Dong in view of Jeong and Kim such that the HOMO energy of the electron blocking layer is between that of the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer and the LUMO energy level of the electron blocking layer is shallower than that of the hole transport layer and light emitting layer, based on the teaching of Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a better balance of carriers and prolong the lifespan of the device, as taught by Zhang.
Claims 29-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1).
Regarding claims 29-33 and 35, Dong in view of Jeong teach Device 9 including a hole transport layer of the modified compound 315, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Dong fails to teach a display panel comprising Device 9. However, as discussed above, Device 9 includes a substrate (a base layer), an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer of the modified compound 315, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (beginning of pg. 17 and beginning of pg. 18).
Kim ‘159 teaches display device comprising a tandem type white organic light emitting diode having improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency (¶ [0008]-[0011]). As shown in Fig. 1, the device includes a first electrode 10; a second electrode 20; a first emitting part 100 (a first light emitting stack) including a hole injecting layer 110, a first hole transporting layer 130 (a first hole transport region), a first emitting layer 150 (a first emission layer), and a first electron transporting layer 170 (a first electron transport region); a second emitting part 200 (a second light emitting stack) including a second hole transporting layer 230 (a second hole transport region), a second emitting layer 250 (a second emission layer), and a second electron transporting layer 270 (a second electron transport region); a third emitting part 300 including a third hole transporting layer 330, a third emitting layer 350, and a third electron transporting layer 370; a first charge generation layer 410 including an N-type first charge generating layer 411 and a P-type first charge generating layer 412; and a second charge generating layer 420 including an N-type second charge generating layer 421 and a P-type second charge generating layer 422 (¶ [0031]-[0043], and [0048]-[0049]). Additionally, the first emitting layer 150, the second emitting layer 250, and the third emitting layer 350 each include at least two emitting layer deposited in sequence (¶ [0037], [0041], and [0045]). The first emitting part emits a first color light and the second emitting part emits a second color light which is different from the first color light (¶ [0034] and [0039]).
Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image12.png
70
458
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified Device 9 of Dong in view of Jeong (including a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer of the modified compound 315, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and electron injection layer) in the display device of Kim ‘159, wherein Dong’s Device 9 is provided in the locations of
PNG
media_image12.png
70
458
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, based on the teaching of Kim ‘159. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency, as taught by Kim ‘159, and provide a device with good thermal stability, high luminous efficiency, and long life, as taught by Dong.
Per claim 29, the first luminous area is defined as the left half of the device and the second luminous area is defined as the right half of the device.
PNG
media_image13.png
692
458
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Per claim 31, the first emitting layer 150 overlaps with both the first and second luminous areas. Accordingly, as the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission layers are not required to be separate layers, the first emitting layer reads on the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission layers. Similarly, the second emitting layer 250 overlaps with both the first and second luminous area. Accordingly, as the claimed 2-1st and 2-2nd emission layers are not required to be separate layers, the second emitting layer reads on the claimed 2-1st and 2-2nd emission layers.
Per claim 32, the hole injecting layer 110 overlaps with both the first and second luminous areas. Accordingly, as the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission auxiliary layers are not required to be separate layers, the hole injecting layer reads on the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission auxiliary layers. Similarly, the P-type first charge generating layer 412 overlaps with both the first and second luminous areas. Accordingly, as the claimed 2-1st and 2-2nd emission auxiliary layers are not required to be separate layers, the P-type first charge generating layer reads on the claimed 2-1st and 2-2nd emission auxiliary layers. Additionally, the N-type first charge generating layer 411 reads on the claimed charge generating layer.
Per claim 33, as discussed above, the first emitting part emits a first color light and the second emitting part emits a second color light which is different from the first color light (see Kim, ¶ [0034] and [0039]).
Per claim 35, as discussed above, the first charge generation layer 410 includes an N-type first charge generating layer 411 and a P-type first charge generating layer 412.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) and (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Kitamura (US 2010/0314613 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 teaches the display device including a first emitting part including a first emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 31.
As described above, the first emitting layer reads on the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission layers.
Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 fail to teach the first emitting layer includes a first organometallic compound represented by the claimed Formula M-a and a second organometallic compound represented by the claimed Formula M-b. However, Kim ‘159 does teach the first emitting layer may include a blue color emitting layer and a red color emitting layer (¶ [0011] and [0061]).
Kitamura teaches an organic electroluminescence element having high and excellent endurance by including a light-emitting layer comprising two phosphorescent light-emitting materials and a charge-transport material, wherein one of the two phosphorescent light-emitting materials is a platinum complex represented by general formula 1 and the other is an iridium complex represented by one of general formulae 2A to 2C (¶ [0012]-[0017]). Kitamura teaches an example of such a device in Example 1 which includes a light-emitting layer comprising charge-transporting material A, a red phosphorescent light-emitting material A and a blue phosphorescent light-emitting material A (¶ [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kitamura’s charge-transporting material A, red phosphorescent light-emitting material A, and blue phosphorescent light-emitting material A (as taught in Kitamura’s Example 1) in the first emitting layer of the device of Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159, based on the teaching of Kitamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high and excellent endurance, as taught by Kitamura.
The red phosphorescent light-emitting material A is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula M-a (see Kitamura, pg. 15).
Red A:
PNG
media_image14.png
175
193
media_image14.png
Greyscale
M-a:
PNG
media_image15.png
191
360
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The red phosphorescent light-emitting material reads on the claimed Formula M-a wherein:
Y1 to Y4 are each CRj1 wherein each Rj1 is hydrogen;
Z1 to Z4 are each CRj1 wherein two Rj1 are hydrogen and two Rj1 combine to form a ring;
Rj2 and Rj4 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom, and Rj3 is hydrogen; and
m is 1 and n is 2.
The blue phosphorescent light-emitting material A is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula M-b (see Kitamura, pg. 15).
Blue A:
PNG
media_image16.png
177
173
media_image16.png
Greyscale
M-b:
PNG
media_image17.png
269
295
media_image17.png
Greyscale
The blue phosphorescent light-emitting material A reads on the claimed Formula M-b wherein:
Q1 and Q2 are each N and Q3 and Q4 are each C;
C1, C2, and C4 are each a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic of 5 ring-forming carbon atoms, and C3 is a substituted heterocycle of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms;
L21 and L23 are each a direct linkage, L22 is not required to be present, and L24 is C(R38)(R39);
e1, e3, and e4 are each 1 and e2 is 0;
R31 and R34 are each hydrogen, R32 is a halogen atom, R33 is a substituted alkyl group of carbon atom, and R38 and R39 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom; and
d1 and d4 are each 3, d2 is 2, and d3 is 1.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) and Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Montenegro (US 2015/0065730 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 teaches the display device including a P-type first charge generating layer, as described above with respect to claim 35.
While Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 fail to teach the P-type first charge generating layer includes a compound represented by the claimed Formula P-1, Kim ‘159 does teach the P-type first charge generating layer comprises a host material which has a hole transporting capacity, wherein examples thereof include an arylamine-based compound (¶ [0131], [0133], and [0139]).
Montenegro teaches compounds represented by formula (1) for use as hole-transport materials or matrix materials in an OLED, wherein the compounds have high thermal stability and provide the device with improved lifetime, efficiency, and operating voltage (¶ [0004] and [0006]). Montenegro teaches examples of devices comprising compounds represented by formula (1) including device E7 which includes HTM6 as a matrix (host) material and a hole transporting material (see Table 6 on pg. 188; structure on pg. 187). As HTM6 may be a matrix (host) material and a hole transporting material, HTM6 may be considered a host material having hole transporting capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound represented by Montenegro’s formula (1) (specifically HTM6 as shown in Montenegro’s device E7) as the host material of the P-type first charge generating layer of the device of Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159, based on the teaching of Montenegro. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a compound with high thermal stability and provide a device with improved lifetime, efficiency, and operating voltage, as taught by Montenegro.
HTM6 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula P-1.
HTM6:
PNG
media_image18.png
242
211
media_image18.png
Greyscale
P-1:
PNG
media_image19.png
268
524
media_image19.png
Greyscale
HTM6 reads on the claimed Formula P-1 wherein:
Ar11 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms and Ar12 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 25 ring-forming carbon atoms;
Rg1 and Rg2 are each hydrogen, and Rg3 and Rg4 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom;
[1 is 4, p2 is 3, and p3 to p5 are each 1; and
L11 to L13 are each a direct linkage.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) and Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Pflumm (US 2011/0095282 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 teach the display device including a first emitting part 100, a second emitting part 200, and a third emitting part 300, as described above with respect to claim 29.
The second emitting part 200 in combination with the third emitting part 300 read on the claimed second light emitting stack. As discussed above, the second emitting part 200 includes a second emitting layer 250 (second emission layer) and a second electron transporting layer 270 (buffer layer), and the third emitting part 300 includes a third electron transporting layer 370 (electron transport region).
Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 fail to teach the second electron transporting layer 270 includes a compound represented by the claimed Formula B-1.
Pflumm teaches an organic electroluminescent device having improved efficiency, lifetime, and operating voltage by comprising a triazine derivative represented by formula (1) or (2) as an electron transport material (abstract; ¶ [0007] and [0011]). Pflumm teaches examples of such devices including that of Example 10 which includes the compound ETM4 as the electron transport material (¶ [0110]; Table 2 on pg. 49; structure on pg. 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound represented by Pflumm’s formula (1) or (2), particularly ETM4 as shown in Example 10, as the electron transport material of the second electron transporting layer 270 in the device of Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159, based on the teaching of Pflumm. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved efficiency, lifetime, and operating voltage, as taught by Pflumm.
ETM4 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula B-1.
ETM4:
PNG
media_image20.png
185
240
media_image20.png
Greyscale
B-1:
PNG
media_image21.png
257
373
media_image21.png
Greyscale
ETM4 reads on the claimed Formula B-1 wherein:
Za to Zc are each N and thus Rh1 is not required to be present;
Ara and Arb are each an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms and Arc is represented by Formula S-1;
L21 to L23 are each a direct linkage;
a11 to a13 are each 1;
Ya and Yb are each a direct linkage;
Ri1 to Ri4 are each hydrogen and Ri5 and Ri6 are not required to be present; and
b11 is 3 and b12 to b14 are each 4.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (English translation of CN 110845394 A obtained from Global Dossier) in view of Jeong (US 2019/0016666 A1) and Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Lee ‘086 (US 2015/0123086 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 teach the display device, as described above with respect to claim 29.
Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 fail to teach the device includes a capping layer.
Lee ‘086 teaches an organic light emitting diode including a capping layer on the second electrode, wherein the capping layer includes a first surface and a second surface and has a gradient of refractive index that varies along a thickness direction from the first surface toward the second surface (abstract and ¶ [0074]). The first surface has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.8 and the second surface may have a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7 (¶ [0013]). Providing such a capping layer on an organic light emitting diode improves light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics (¶ [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the capping layer of Lee ‘086 on the cathode of the device of Dong in view of Jeong and Kim ‘159 to improve light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics, as taught by Lee ‘086.
As the second surface of the capping layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7, the capping layer has a refractive index within the claimed range.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, 18, 22, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, 18, 22, 25-26, and 28, Watabe teaches a light-emitting device having high emission efficiency including a monoamine compound represented by general formula (G1) as a material for a hole-transport layer (abstract; ¶ [0001], [0015], and [0055]). Examples thereof include Device 1-1 which comprises a substrate, a first electrode, a hole-injection layer comprising compound 100 (also referred to as compound dchPAF), a hole-transport layer formed of compound 100, a light-emitting layer, an electron-transport layer, an electron-injection layer, and a second electrode (¶ [0666]-[0673]; structure on pgs. 14 and 126).
G1:
PNG
media_image22.png
164
284
media_image22.png
Greyscale
100:
PNG
media_image1.png
236
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 100 fails to read on the claimed Formula 1 as it does not comprise a bicycloheptanyl group. However, Watabe teaches one or both of Ar1 and Ar2 have one or more hydrocarbon groups each having 1 to 12 carbon atoms (¶ [0056]).
Ma teaches a nitrogen-containing compound represented by formula I (abstract). Ma teaches the compound represented by formula I introduces norbornyl (bicycloheptanyl) as a substituent, which provides the compound with good stability and heat resistance, and provides an organic electroluminescent device with improved luminous efficiency, lifetime, and operating voltage (¶ [0016]). Ma teaches examples of compounds represented by formula I including compound 2 (pg. 11).
Formula I:
PNG
media_image23.png
70
136
media_image23.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image24.png
268
282
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a cyclohexyl group of compound 100 with a norbornyl group, as shown in Ma’s compound 2, to arrive at a compound represented by Ma’s formula I, based on the teaching of Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound with good stability and heat resistance, and provide a device with improved luminous efficiency, lifetime, and operating voltage, as taught by Ma.
The modified compound 100 reads on Ma’s formula I wherein L is an unsubstituted arylene having 6 carbon atoms; Ar1 is a substituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms and Ar2 is a substituted aryl having 13 carbon atoms; and the substituent of Ar1 is a cycloalkyl group and the substituent of Ar2 is alkyl (see Ma, ¶ [0009]-[0013]). Accordingly, the modified compound 100 of Watabe in view of Ma is expected to obtain the benefits of Ma.
The modified compound 100 has the same structure as the claimed compound 1015 (claims 12 and 28) and is reproduced below in comparison to Formula 1.
modified 100:
PNG
media_image25.png
394
394
media_image25.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image8.png
173
256
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 100 reads on the claimed Formulas 1 and 8-2 (claims 1, 10, and 22) wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms;
La is a direct linkage;
C1 is an unsubstituted cyclohexyl group (Formula 7-1) and C2 is an unsubstituted bicycloheptanyl group (Formula 7-2) (claim 9);
M is represented by Formula 1-b; and
Rc and Rd are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom, Re and Rg to Rl are each hydrogen, and Rf is a part connected with Formula 1.
Additionally, the modified compound 100 reads on the claimed Formulas 5-1, 6-1, and 8-2 (claims 7-8 and 25-26).
Per claim 13, holes are transported from the anode through the hole-injection layer, and injected into the hole-transport layer (¶ [0294]). Thus, the hole-injection layer may be considered a hole transport layer. Accordingly, the hole-injection layer reads on the claimed first hole transport layer and the hole-transport layer reads on the claimed second hole transport layer. As discussed above, the hole-injection layer comprises the modified compound 100.
Per claim 18, holes are transported from the anode through the hole-injection layer, and injected into the hole-transport layer (¶ [0294]). Thus, the hole-injection layer may be considered a hole transport layer. Accordingly, as holes are transported in the hole-injection layer, the hole-injection layer reads on the claimed hole transport layer and the hole transport layer reads on the claimed hole transport auxiliary layer.
Claims 4, 6, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma ‘273 (US 2023/0272273 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 23, Watabe in view of Ma teach the light-emitting device including a hole-injection layer and a hole-transport layer, wherein the hole-injection layer and the hole-transport layer each comprise the modified compound 100, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Modified 100:
PNG
media_image25.png
394
394
media_image25.png
Greyscale
G1:
PNG
media_image26.png
111
190
media_image26.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 100 fails to read on one of the claimed Formulas 3-1 or 3-2, and fails to read on one of the claimed Formulas 4-1 to Formula 4-15 as it does not comprise a phenyl substituent on the fluorene group. However, Watabe teaches the monoamine compound includes a first aromatic group, a second aromatic group, and a third aromatic group wherein the third aromatic group includes a fluorene skeleton that may be substituted or unsubstituted (¶ [0020], [0027], and [0030]). Additionally, as shown by the general formula (G1) above, Watabe does not limit the attachment point of the fluorene group to the nitrogen atom (¶ [0055]).
Ma ‘273 teaches a nitrogen-containing compound having the structure of Chemical formula 1 (abstract). The linkage of the arylamino to the position 3 of dimethylfluorenyl provides a deep HOMO energy level and a high hole mobility, the phenyl substituent improves film-forming characteristics of the material, and thus the performance of the electronic device including the nitrogen-containing compound has improved performance (¶ [0006] and [0012]-[0013]).
Chemical formula 1:
PNG
media_image27.png
154
215
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in the modified compound 100, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the arylamino group in the 3 position of the dimethylfluorenyl group and to further substitute the dimethylfluorenyl group with a phenyl substituent in the 5 position, to arrive at a compound represented by Chemical formula 1 of Ma ‘273, based on the teaching of Ma ‘273. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound with deep HOMO energy level, high hole mobility, and improved film-forming characteristics, and provide a device with improved performance, as taught by Ma ‘273.
The modified compound 100 reads on Chemical formula 1 of Ma ‘273 wherein L, L1 and L2 are each a single bond; Ar1 and Ar2 are each a substituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; and the substituents of Ar1 and Ar2 are each a cycloalkyl with 6 or 7 carbon atoms (see Ma ‘273, ¶ [0025-[0027]). Accordingly, the modified compound 100 of Watabe in view of Ma and Ma ‘273 is expected to obtain the benefits of Ma ‘273.
The modified compound 100 of Watabe in view of Ma and Ma ‘273 reads on the claimed Formula 2-1 wherein Ra1 is hydrogen and m1 is 5, and the claimed Formula 4-1 (claims 4, 6, and 23).
Claims 5, 12, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (English translation of CN 112010759 obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 24, and 28, Watabe in view of Ma teach the light-emitting device including a hole-injection layer and a hole-transport layer, wherein the hole-injection layer and the hole-transport layer each comprise the modified compound 100, as described above with respect to claim 1.
modified 100:
PNG
media_image25.png
394
394
media_image25.png
Greyscale
The modified compound 100 fails to read on one of the claimed Formulas 3-1 or 3-2 as it does not comprise two phenyl substituents on the fluorene group. However, Watabe teaches the monoamine compound includes a first aromatic group, a second aromatic group, and a third aromatic group wherein the third aromatic group includes a fluorene skeleton that may be substituted or unsubstituted (¶ [0020], [0027], and [0030]).
Wang teaches a fluorene derivative represented by general formula (1) for use in organic electroluminescent devices, wherein the fluorene derivative obtains high thermal and optical stability, excellent hole transport performance, and high carrier mobility (last paragraph on pg. 1). In general formula (1), each of A, B, and C is an arylamino, a heteroarylamino, an aryl, or a heteroaryl (beginning of pg. 2). Examples of compounds represented by general formula (1) include compound C453 (pg. 16).
general formula (1):
PNG
media_image28.png
192
280
media_image28.png
Greyscale
C453:
PNG
media_image29.png
147
229
media_image29.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in the modified compound 100, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute phenyl groups in the 3- and 7-positions of the fluorene group (as shown in Wang’s C453), to arrive at a compound represented by Wang’s general formula (1), based on the teaching of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound with high thermal and optical stability, excellent hole transport performance, and high carrier mobility, as taught by Wang.
The modified compound 100 reads on Wang’s general formula (1) wherein R and R’ are each a C1 alkyl; R1 and R2 are each hydrogen; A is represented by formula (2), and B and C are each an unsubstituted C6 aryl; Ar1 and Ar2 are each a substituted C6 aryl; L1 and L2 are each a single bond; and the substituents of Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C6 or C7 cycloalkyl (see Wang, beginning of pg. 2). Accordingly, the modified compound 100 of Watabe in view of Ma and Wang is expected to obtain the benefits of Wang.
The modified compound 100 of Watabe in view of Ma and Wang reads on the claimed compound 703 (claims 12 and 28), and additionally reads on the claimed Formula 3-2 wherein Rb3 and Rb4 are each hydrogen and m15 and m16 are each 5 (claims 5 and 24).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) as applied to claims 13 and 18 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2008/0286606 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Watabe in view of Ma teaches the light-emitting device including a hole-injection layer (HIL1) and a hole-transport layer (HTL), wherein HIL1 and HTL each comprise the modified compound 100, as described above with respect to claims 13 and 18.
Watabe in view of Ma fail to teach a third layer in the hole-transport region.
Hwang teaches an organic light emitting diode including a first hole injection layer and a second hole injection layer, wherein at least one of the first hole injection layer and the second hole injection layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, and the first and second hole injection layers are provided between an emissive layer and a hole transport layer (abstract; Fig. 1). Such a device obtains electrical stability, high charge transporting ability, and long life-time (¶ [0008] and [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include in the device of Watabe in view of Ma an additional hole-injection layer (HIL2), wherein HIL2 is provided between the anode and HIL1 or alternatively between HIL1 and HTL, wherein at least one of the two hole-injection layers (HIL1 and HIL2) includes a compound represented by Hwang’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Hwang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with electrical stability, high charge transporting ability, and long life-time, as taught by Hwang.
The resulting device includes either of the following structures in the hole transport region: HIL2/HIL1/HTL or HIL1/HIL2/HTL.
Per claim 14, holes are transported from the anode through the hole-injection layer, and injected into the hole-transport layer (¶ [0294]). Accordingly, a hole-injection layer may be considered a hole transport layer. Thus, in the device structure comprising HIL1/HIL2/HTL. HIL1 reads on the claimed first hole transport layer, HIL2 reads on the second hole transport layer, and HTL reads on the claimed third hole transport layer. As discussed above, both HIL1 and HTL include the modified compound 100.
Per claim 19, holes are transported from the anode through the hole-injection layer, and injected into the hole-transport layer (¶ [0294]). Accordingly, a hole-injection layer may be considered a hole transport layer. Thus, in the device structure comprising HIL2/HIL1/HTL, HIL2 reads on the claimed hole transport layer, HIL1 reads on the claimed first hole transport auxiliary layer, HTL reads on the claimed second hole transport auxiliary layer. As discussed above, HIL1 includes the modified compound 100.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2014/0117329 A1).
Regarding claims 15-17, Watabe in view of Ma teaches the light-emitting device including a hole-injection layer (first hole transport layer) and a hole-transport layer (second hole transport layer), wherein the hole-injection layer comprises the modified compound 100, as described above with respect to claim 13.
Watabe in view of Ma fail to teach the hole-transport layer includes an amine derivative represented by the claimed Formula 10.
Lee teaches an amine-based compound represented by Formula 1 for use in an organic light-emitting device, wherein examples thereof include Compound 1 (abstract; ¶ [0010]; pg. 27). The amine-based compound provides the device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime (¶ [0047]). Lee teaches an example of such a device in Example 1 wherein Compound 1 is used to form the hole transport layer (¶ [0324]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Compound 1 in the hole-transport layer in the device of Watabe in view of Ma, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime, as taught by Lee.
Compound 1 is identical to the claimed compound A27 (claim 17) and is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 10 (claim 15).
1:
PNG
media_image10.png
273
263
media_image10.png
Greyscale
10:
PNG
media_image11.png
204
404
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 reads on the claimed Formula 10 wherein:
L1 is a direct linkage;
R11, R13, and R14 are each an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms, and R12 is an unsubstituted aryl group of 12 ring-forming carbon atoms;
R15 to R18 are each a hydrogen atom; and
n11 and n14 are each 4 and n12 and n13 are each 3.
Additionally, Compound 1 reads on the claimed Formula 11-2 (claim 16).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) and Hwang (US 2008/0286606 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Lee ‘919 (US 2017/0330919 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Watabe in view of Ma and Hwang teach the light-emitting device including the additional hole-injection layer HIL2 (hole transport layer), the hole-injection layer HIL1 (first hole transport auxiliary layer), and the hole-transport layer (second hole transport auxiliary layer), as described above with respect to claim 19.
While Watabe teaches a layer with a low refractive index leads to higher external quantum efficiency (¶ [0295]-[0296]), Watabe in view of Ma and Hwang are silent as to the refractive index of the hole-injection layer and the hole-transport layer.
Lee ‘919 teaches an organic light emitting diode comprising a hole transport layer, wherein the hole transport layer may include a hole-transporting layer and a hole-injection layer, wherein the hole transport layer may have a refractive index in a range of 1.0 to 1.6 in the blue wavelength region (e.g., about 450 nm) (abstract; ¶ [0058] and [0081]). By using a hole transport layer with a relatively low refractive index, the light-emitting efficiency is improved (¶ [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hole-injection layer and hole-transport layer of the device of Watabe in view of Ma and Hwang such that the layers have a refractive index in a range of 1.0 to 1.6 in the blue wavelength region, based on the teaching of Lee ‘919. The motivation for doing so would have been to higher external quantum efficiency, as taught by Watabe, and to improve light-emitting efficiency, as taught by Lee ‘929.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) and Hwang (US 2008/0286606 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Shitagaki (US 2009/0102368 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Watabe in view of Ma and Hwang teach the light-emitting device including the additional hole-injection layer HIL2 (hole transport layer), the hole-injection layer HIL1 (first hole transport auxiliary layer), and the hole-transport layer (second hole transport auxiliary layer), as described above with respect to claim 19.
Watabe in view of Ma and Hwang are silent as to the HOMO energy level of the hole-transport layer being greater than the HOMO energy level of the hole-injection layer.
Shitagaki teaches a light-emitting element including a hole-injecting layer and a hole-transporting layer wherein the absolute value of the HOMO level of the hole-transporting layer is larger than that of the hole-injecting layer, as this increases the luminous efficiency of the light-emitting element (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hole-injection layer and hole-transport layer of the device of Watabe in view of Ma and Hwang such that the absolute value of the HOMO level of the hole-transport layer is larger than that of the hole-injection layer, based on the teaching of Shitagaki. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with increased luminous efficiency, as taught by Shitagaki.
Claims 29-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1).
Regarding claims 29-33 and 35, Watabe in view of Ma teach the modified Device 1-1 including a hole-injection layer of the modified compound 100 and a hole-transport layer of the modified compound 100, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Watabe in view of Ma fail to teach a display panel comprising the modified Device 1-1. However, as discussed above, the modified Device 1-1 includes a substrate (a base layer), an anode, a hole-injection layer of the modified compound 100, a hole-transport layer of the modified compound 100, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron-injection layer, and a cathode (see Watabe, ¶ [0666]-[0673]).
Kim ‘159 teaches display device comprising a tandem type white organic light emitting diode having improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency (¶ [0008]-[0011]). As shown in Fig. 1, the device includes a first electrode 10; a second electrode 20; a first emitting part 100 (a first light emitting stack) including a hole injecting layer 110, a first hole transporting layer 130 (a first hole transport region), a first emitting layer 150 (a first emission layer), and a first electron transporting layer 170 (a first electron transport region); a second emitting part 200 (a second light emitting stack) including a second hole transporting layer 230 (a second hole transport region), a second emitting layer 250 (a second emission layer), and a second electron transporting layer 270 (a second electron transport region); a third emitting part 300 including a third hole transporting layer 330, a third emitting layer 350, and a third electron transporting layer 370; a first charge generation layer 410 including an N-type first charge generating layer 411 and a P-type first charge generating layer 412; and a second charge generating layer 420 including an N-type second charge generating layer 421 and a P-type second charge generating layer 422 (¶ [0031]-[0043], and [0048]-[0049]). Additionally, the first emitting layer 150, the second emitting layer 250, and the third emitting layer 350 each include at least two emitting layer deposited in sequence (¶ [0037], [0041], and [0045]). The first emitting part emits a first color light and the second emitting part emits a second color light which is different from the first color light (¶ [0034] and [0039]).
Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image12.png
70
458
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified Device 1-1 (including a substrate, an anode, a hole-injection layer of the modified compound 100, a hole-transport layer of the modified compound 100, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and electron injection layer) in the display device of Kim ‘159, wherein the modified Device 1-1 is provided in the locations of
PNG
media_image12.png
70
458
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, based on the teaching of Kim ‘159. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency, as taught by Kim ‘159, and provide a device with high emission efficiency, as taught by Watabe.
Per claim 29, the first luminous area is defined as the left half of the device and the second luminous area is defined as the right half of the device.
PNG
media_image13.png
692
458
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Per claim 31, the first emitting layer 150 overlaps with both the first and second luminous areas. Accordingly, as the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission layers are not required to be separate layers, the first emitting layer reads on the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission layers. Similarly, the second emitting layer 250 overlaps with both the first and second luminous area. Accordingly, as the claimed 2-1st and 2-2nd emission layers are not required to be separate layers, the second emitting layer reads on the claimed 2-1st and 2-2nd emission layers.
Per claim 32, the hole injecting layer 110 overlaps with both the first and second luminous areas. Accordingly, as the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission auxiliary layers are not required to be separate layers, the hole injecting layer reads on the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission auxiliary layers. Similarly, the P-type first charge generating layer 412 overlaps with both the first and second luminous areas. Accordingly, as the claimed 2-1st and 2-2nd emission auxiliary layers are not required to be separate layers, the P-type first charge generating layer reads on the claimed 2-1st and 2-2nd emission auxiliary layers. Additionally, the N-type first charge generating layer 411 reads on the claimed charge generating layer.
Per claim 33, as discussed above, the first emitting part emits a first color light and the second emitting part emits a second color light which is different from the first color light (see Kim, ¶ [0034] and [0039]).
Per claim 35, as discussed above, the first charge generation layer 410 includes an N-type first charge generating layer 411 and a P-type first charge generating layer 412.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) and Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Kitamura (US 2010/0314613 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 teach the display device including a first emitting part including a first emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 31.
As described above, the first emitting layer reads on the claimed 1-1st and 1-2nd emission layers.
Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 fail to teach the first emitting layer includes a first organometallic compound represented by the claimed Formula M-a and a second organometallic compound represented by the claimed Formula M-b. However, Kim ‘159 does teach the first emitting layer may include a blue color emitting layer and a red color emitting layer (¶ [0011] and [0061]).
Kitamura teaches an organic electroluminescence element having high and excellent endurance by including a light-emitting layer comprising two phosphorescent light-emitting materials and a charge-transport material, wherein one of the two phosphorescent light-emitting materials is a platinum complex represented by general formula 1 and the other is an iridium complex represented by one of general formulae 2A to 2C (¶ [0012]-[0017]). Kitamura teaches an example of such a device in Example 1 which includes a light-emitting layer comprising charge-transporting material A, a red phosphorescent light-emitting material A and a blue phosphorescent light-emitting material A (¶ [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Kitamura’s charge-transporting material A, red phosphorescent light-emitting material A, and blue phosphorescent light-emitting material A (as taught in Kitamura’s Example 1) in the first emitting layer of the device of Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159, based on the teaching of Kitamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high and excellent endurance, as taught by Kitamura.
The red phosphorescent light-emitting material A is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula M-a (see Kitamura, pg. 15).
Red A:
PNG
media_image14.png
175
193
media_image14.png
Greyscale
M-a:
PNG
media_image15.png
191
360
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The red phosphorescent light-emitting material reads on the claimed Formula M-a wherein:
Y1 to Y4 are each CRj1 wherein each Rj1 is hydrogen;
Z1 to Z4 are each CRj1 wherein two Rj1 are hydrogen and two Rj1 combine to form a ring;
Rj2 and Rj4 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom, and Rj3 is hydrogen; and
m is 1 and n is 2.
The blue phosphorescent light-emitting material A is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula M-b (see Kitamura, pg. 15).
Blue A:
PNG
media_image16.png
177
173
media_image16.png
Greyscale
M-b:
PNG
media_image17.png
269
295
media_image17.png
Greyscale
The blue phosphorescent light-emitting material A reads on the claimed Formula M-b wherein:
Q1 and Q2 are each N and Q3 and Q4 are each C;
C1, C2, and C4 are each a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic of 5 ring-forming carbon atoms, and C3 is a substituted heterocycle of 3 ring-forming carbon atoms;
L21 and L23 are each a direct linkage, L22 is not required to be present, and L24 is C(R38)(R39);
e1, e3, and e4 are each 1 and e2 is 0;
R31 and R34 are each hydrogen, R32 is a halogen atom, R33 is a substituted alkyl group of carbon atom, and R38 and R39 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom; and
d1 and d4 are each 3, d2 is 2, and d3 is 1.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) and Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Montenegro (US 2015/0065730 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 teach the display device including a P-type first charge generating layer, as described above with respect to claim 35.
While Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 fail to teach the P-type first charge generating layer includes a compound represented by the claimed Formula P-1, Kim ‘159 does teach the P-type first charge generating layer comprises a host material which has a hole transporting capacity, wherein examples thereof include an arylamine-based compound (¶ [0131], [0133], and [0139]).
Montenegro teaches compounds represented by formula (1) for use as hole-transport materials or matrix materials in an OLED, wherein the compounds have high thermal stability and provide the device with improved lifetime, efficiency, and operating voltage (¶ [0004] and [0006]). Montenegro teaches examples of devices comprising compounds represented by formula (1) including device E7 which includes HTM6 as a matrix (host) material and a hole transporting material (see Table 6 on pg. 188; structure on pg. 187). As HTM6 may be a matrix (host) material and a hole transporting material, HTM6 may be considered a host material having hole transporting capacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound represented by Montenegro’s formula (1) (specifically HTM6 as shown in Montenegro’s device E7) as the host material of the P-type first charge generating layer of the device of Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159, based on the teaching of Montenegro. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a compound with high thermal stability and provide a device with improved lifetime, efficiency, and operating voltage, as taught by Montenegro.
HTM6 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula P-1.
HTM6:
PNG
media_image18.png
242
211
media_image18.png
Greyscale
P-1:
PNG
media_image19.png
268
524
media_image19.png
Greyscale
HTM6 reads on the claimed Formula P-1 wherein:
Ar11 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 12 ring-forming carbon atoms and Ar12 is an unsubstituted aryl group having 25 ring-forming carbon atoms;
Rg1 and Rg2 are each hydrogen, and Rg3 and Rg4 are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom;
[1 is 4, p2 is 3, and p3 to p5 are each 1; and
L11 to L13 are each a direct linkage.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) and Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Pflumm (US 2011/0095282 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 teach the display device including a first emitting part 100, a second emitting part 200, and a third emitting part 300, as described above with respect to claim 29.
The second emitting part 200 in combination with the third emitting part 300 read on the claimed second light emitting stack. As discussed above, the second emitting part 200 includes a second emitting layer 250 (second emission layer) and a second electron transporting layer 270 (buffer layer), and the third emitting part 300 includes a third electron transporting layer 370 (electron transport region).
Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 fail to teach the second electron transporting layer 270 includes a compound represented by the claimed Formula B-1.
Pflumm teaches an organic electroluminescent device having improved efficiency, lifetime, and operating voltage by comprising a triazine derivative represented by formula (1) or (2) as an electron transport material (abstract; ¶ [0007] and [0011]). Pflumm teaches examples of such devices including that of Example 10 which includes the compound ETM4 as the electron transport material (¶ [0110]; Table 2 on pg. 49; structure on pg. 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a compound represented by Pflumm’s formula (1) or (2), particularly ETM4 as shown in Example 10, as the electron transport material of the second electron transporting layer 270 in the device of Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159, based on the teaching of Pflumm. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved efficiency, lifetime, and operating voltage, as taught by Pflumm.
ETM4 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula B-1.
ETM4:
PNG
media_image20.png
185
240
media_image20.png
Greyscale
B-1:
PNG
media_image21.png
257
373
media_image21.png
Greyscale
ETM4 reads on the claimed Formula B-1 wherein:
Za to Zc are each N and thus Rh1 is not required to be present;
Ara and Arb are each an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms and Arc is represented by Formula S-1;
L21 to L23 are each a direct linkage;
a11 to a13 are each 1;
Ya and Yb are each a direct linkage;
Ri1 to Ri4 are each hydrogen and Ri5 and Ri6 are not required to be present; and
b11 is 3 and b12 to b14 are each 4.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 2021/0005814 A1) in view of Ma (US 2022/0306567 A1) and Kim ‘159 (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Lee ‘086 (US 2015/0123086 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 teach the display device, as described above with respect to claim 29.
Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 fail to teach the device includes a capping layer.
Lee ‘086 teaches an organic light emitting diode including a capping layer on the second electrode, wherein the capping layer includes a first surface and a second surface and has a gradient of refractive index that varies along a thickness direction from the first surface toward the second surface (abstract and ¶ [0074]). The first surface has a refractive index in a range of about 1.3 to about 1.8 and the second surface may have a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7 (¶ [0013]). Providing such a capping layer on an organic light emitting diode improves light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics (¶ [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the capping layer of ‘086 on the cathode of the device of Watabe in view of Ma and Kim ‘159 to improve light extraction efficiency and white angular dependence characteristics, as taught by Lee ‘086.
As the second surface of the capping layer has a refractive index in a range of about 1.8 to about 2.7, the capping layer has a refractive index within the claimed range.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of copending Application No. 17/809,819 (US PGPUB 2023/0157155 A1)). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-28 of ‘819 are identical to those of claims 1-28 of ‘486 except wherein, in the amine compound represented by Formula 1, ‘416 requires at least one selected from among C1 and C2 is a substituted or unsubstituted adamantyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted cyclohexyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted bicyclooctanyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted triphenylsilyl group. Accordingly, the full scope of claims 1-28 of ‘819 falls within the scope of claims 1-28 of ‘486.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-18, 22, and 25-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,497,348 (issue date 12/16/2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of ‘348 recites compounds for use in a light-emitting element which meet the limitations of claims 1, 3, 6-12, 22, and 25-28 of ‘486.
For example, claims 8 and 20 recite compounds 21 and 24, which read on the limitations of the amine compound of claims 1, 3, 6-12, 22, and 25-28 of ‘486.
Compound 21 of ‘348:
PNG
media_image30.png
230
222
media_image30.png
Greyscale
Formula 1 of ‘486: 1:
PNG
media_image8.png
173
256
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Compound 21 of ‘348 reads on the claimed Formulas 1 and 8-2 of ‘486 (claims 1, 10, and 22) wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms;
La is a direct linkage;
C1 is an unsubstituted cyclohexyl group (Formula 7-1) and C2 is an unsubstituted bicycloheptanyl group (Formula 7-2) (claim 9);
M is represented by Formula 1-b; and
Rc and Rd are each an unsubstituted alkyl group of 1 carbon atom, Re and Rg to Rl are each hydrogen, and Rf is a part connected with Formula 1.
Additionally, Compound 21 of ‘348 reads on the claimed Formulas 5-1, 6-1, and 8-2, and the claimed compound 1015 (claims 7-8, 12, 25-26, and 28).
Compound 24 of ‘348:
PNG
media_image31.png
232
221
media_image31.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Compound 24 of ‘348 reads on the claimed Formulas 1 and 8-2 (claims 1 and 22) wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each an unsubstituted arylene group of 6 ring-forming carbon atoms;
La is a direct linkage;
C1 is an unsubstituted cyclohexyl group (Formula 7-1) and C2 is an unsubstituted bicycloheptanyl group (Formula 7-2) (claim 9);
M is represented by Formula 1-c;
Z is O; and
R3 is hydrogen and n3 is an integer of 7.
Additionally, compound 24 of ‘348 reads on the claimed Formula 9-1 (claims 11 and 27), and the claimed compound 1018 (claims 12 and 28).
Additionally, ‘348 recites Formula 1 in claims 1, 6, 14, and 17, Formulas 1-1 and 1-2 in claims 4 and 15, Formula 1-2A in claims 5 and 16, Formula 1A in claims 7 and 18, and Formula 1A-1 in claim 19. As evidenced by the compounds in claims 12 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select variables of Formula 1, Formulas 1-1 and 1-2, Formula 1-2A, Formula 1A, and Formula 1A-1 to arrive at the instant claimed Formula 1 comprising the limitations of claims 1, 3, 6-11, 22, and 25-27 of ‘486, because it would have been choosing from a list of variables specifically taught, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound possessing the benefits taught by ‘348. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Formula 1, Formulas 1-1 and 1-2, Formula 1-2A, Formula 1A, and Formula 1A-1 having the properties taught by ‘348 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Additionally, claims 1-2 and 9-13 of ‘014 correspond to claims 1-2, 13, and 15-17 of ‘486, as shown below.
12,497,348
18/314,486
PNG
media_image32.png
361
423
media_image32.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image33.png
255
353
media_image33.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image34.png
141
425
media_image34.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image35.png
102
373
media_image35.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image36.png
122
287
media_image36.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image37.png
162
374
media_image37.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image38.png
222
297
media_image38.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image39.png
282
375
media_image39.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image40.png
50
370
media_image40.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image41.png
462
341
media_image41.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image42.png
52
369
media_image42.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image43.png
496
368
media_image43.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image44.png
69
369
media_image44.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image45.png
71
367
media_image45.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image46.png
75
365
media_image46.png
Greyscale
Wherein the compounds in Compound Group 2 of ‘486 are identical to the compounds in Group 2-1 and 2-2 of ‘348
Additionally, claim 3 of ‘348 recites the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer on the first electrode, and a hole transport layer on the hole injection layer, and the hole transport layer comprises the amine compound. As holes are transported through a hole injection layer (see ¶ [0004] of ‘348), the hole injection layer may be considered a hole transport layer or a hole transport auxiliary layer. According, claim 3 of ‘348 corresponds to claim 18 of ‘486.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights