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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-10, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2022/0209119 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12-13 and 15, Tasaki et al. ( see abstract, claims and examples) disclose an organic light emitting diode, comprising: a first electrode ( se abstract and [0764], “ITO transparent electrode (anode)”); a second electrode ( see abstract and [0770], “ Al metal deposited on the LiF film to form a metal cathode”) facing the first electrode; and first emitting part 95A, 5B, see [0152]) including a first blue emitting layer ( see [0152 & 0163]) and positioned between the first and second electrode, the second blue emitting layer positioned between the first blue emitting layer and the second electrode and contacting the first blue emitting layer ( see [0152 & 0163]), wherein the first blue emitting layer includes a first host ( see [0222]) and a first dopant ( see claim 22 and [0163]), and the second blue emitting layer includes a second host [0163] and a second dopant [0163], wherein the first host is an anthracene derivative having a first deuteration ratio ( see [0171-0174 and 0258 and fourth compound on page 29 and compound A shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
217
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the second host is an anthracene derivative having a second deuteration ratio smaller than the first deuteration ratio ( see [0171-0174, 0258 and second compound on page 49 and compound B shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
153
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Further regards to the claims, Tasaki et al. do not explicitly disclose the first dopant is a first compound represented by Formula 3 and the second dopant is a second compound represented by Formula 7 as instantly claimed. However, Tasaki et al. recognize that the first emitting layer and the second emitting layer contains a blue emitting dopant [0163-0169]. Nonetheless, Choi et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples and [0008]) teach display device comprising boron-based dopants ( Formula 1A
PNG
media_image3.png
233
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and Formula 1B
PNG
media_image4.png
213
329
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) meeting the limitation of Formulas 3 and 7 . Choi et al. and Tasaki et al. are analogous art in display device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the blue dopants of Tasaki et al. to include Formula IA and Formula IB dopants as described by Choi et al. in view aiding in blue light emission.
Further regards to claim 3, Tasaki et al. teach a second dopant represented by Formula 7a ( see page 399, column 2, second compound and structure C shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
197
218
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Further regards to claims 6 and 7, Tasaki et al. teach the first host according to formula 1, 1a and second host according to formula 5, 5a ( see for first host see [0171-0174 and 0258] and fourth compound of page 29; for second host see [0171-0174 & 0258] and second compound of page 49). The chemical structure of first (A) and second host (B) are also shown claim 1.
Further regards to claim 8, Tasaki et al. teach the first host includes a compound of Formula 2 . Compound BH3_D4 of the claim 1 is identical to fourth compound on page 29 in Tasaki et al. The chemical structure (A) is also shown in claim 1.
Further regards to claim 9, Tasaki et al. teach the first host includes a compound of Formula 6. Compound BH3_D3 of the claim 1 is identical to fourth compound on page 49 in Tasaki et al. The chemical structure (B) is also shown in claim 1.
Further regards to claim 10, Tasaki et al. do not explicitly disclose a third and fourth blue emitting layers or deuteration ratio as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, Tasaki et al. teach a plurality of emitting layer ( i.e. adjacent layers 5A, 5B and adjacent layers 5C and 5D; see figures, claims and examples). Choi et al. teach a plurality of boron based dopants for blue light emission ( see claim 1, [0008] and Formulas 1A and 1B). Formulae 1A and 1B corresponds to dopants Formulae 3 and 7of the present claims. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the organic light emitting diode of Tasaki et al. to include blue emitting layers as taught by Choi et al. in view in aiding in emission properties and deuteration ratio in view of routine optimization.
Further regards to claims 12 and 13, Tasaki et al. teach third host represented by Formula 1, 1a and fourth host represented by formula 5 and 5a. Compound BH3_D4 of the present application is identical to fourth compound on page 29 of Tasaki et al. Compounds BH3-D3 of the present application is identical to second compound on page 49 shown in Tasaki et al.
Further regards to claim 15, Tasaki et al. teach an OLED ( abstract, figures and claims) comprising a substrate ( 602, [0141 and Fog. 5); an organic light emitting diode ( [0142 and Fig. 2); and encapsulation layer covering the organic light emitting diode ( 170 and [0062] and fig. 2), wherein the substate includes a red pixel region, a green pixel region and blue pixel region, and the organic light emitting diode corresponds to the red pixel region, the green pixel region and the blue pixel ( see [0141]), wherein the organic light emitting device further comprises: a color filter layer ( 680, [0146] and Fig. 5).
However, Tasaki et al. do not explicitly the red , blue and green pixel regions as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, it is noted that commonly knowledge in OLED to include a color filter including red , blue and green pixel regions . The examiner has added Choi et al. to teach the corresponding to the red pixel region, the green pixel region and the blue pixel region and positive over the organic light emitting diode ( see [0062, 0141, 0142 and 0146]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the color filter of Tasaki et al. to include the red pixel region, the green pixel region and the blue pixel region and positive over the organic light emitting diode.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2022/0209119 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (WO 2021/010656 A1).
Regarding claim 5, neither Tasaki et al. nor Choi et al. explicitly teach the second dopant is one of compound in Formula 8 as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Cha et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include a second dopant represented by one of compound of Formula 8 ( BD1_A4 of current claim is identical to compound in Cha et al. on page 37, second row, second compound and [0474, Example 5, compound 2-2: See chemical structure D and BD1_A1 of present application is identical to compound shown in D3, page 37, further row, third compound see chemical structure E)
PNG
media_image6.png
230
551
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. Cha et al. Choi et al. and Tasaki et al. are analogous art in the OLED field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the second dopant of Tasaki et al. in view of Choi et al. to include chemical structure D and/or E as taught by Cha et al. in view of aiding to improve the performance, life or efficiency of an organic light emitting device.
Regarding claim 14, neither Tasaki et al. nor Choi et al. explicitly teach the HOMO energy levels or the triplet energy levels as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Cha et al. to teach the first dopant is a boron derivative having a first HOMO energy level, and the second dopant is boron derivative having a second HOMO energy level lower than the first HOMO energy level, and wherein the first dopant has a triplet energy, and the second dopant has a second triplet energy greater than the first triplet energy ( [0318-0319]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the substituents of the boron based dopants of Tasaki et al. in view of Choi et al. to include the HOMO energy values as well as the triplet energy levels as taught by Cha et al. in view of allowing to tune the molecules electronic structure and routine optimization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights