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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20220074408 A, relying on WIPO English Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tasaki teaches an organic light emitting diode (Device Example 29, para. [0764] and [0820] – [0821]), comprising: a first electrode (ITO anode, para. [0764]); a second electrode (Al cathode, para. [0770]) facing the first electrode; and a first emitting part including a first blue emitting layer (first emitting layer, para. [0768]), a second blue emitting layer (second emitting layer, para. [0769]) and an electron transporting layer (para. [0770]) and positioned between the first and second electrode, the second blue emitting layer (host and dopant is deposited in the first emitting layer to form the second emitting layer, para. [0769]) positioned between the first blue emitting layer and the second electrode and contacting the first blue emitting layer, and the electron transporting layer (compound HBL is deposited in the second emitting layer to form an electron-transporting layer, para. [0770]) positioned between the second blue emitting layer and the second electrode, wherein the first blue emitting layer includes a first host (compound D-BH-1, para. [0820], this host reads on compound BH2-D1 depicted in claim 9 and 10 of instant application) and a first dopant (compound BD-3. para. [0820]), and the second blue emitting layer includes a second host (compound BH1, para. [0820], this host reads on compound BH2 of claim 10 of instant application) and a second dopant (compound BD-3. para. [0820]), wherein the first host is an anthracene derivative having a first deuteration ratio (compound D-BH-1 has a deuteration ratio of ~31%), and the second host is an anthracene derivative having a second deuteration ratio smaller than the first deuteration ratio (compound BH-1 has a deuteration ratio of 0%), wherein the first transporting layer includes an electron transporting material (compound HBL, para. [0770], this electron transporting material reads on compound ETL1 of claim 14 of instant application) represented by Formula 9,
PNG
media_image1.png
735
1210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in the claimed Formula 9,
h1 to h5 are 0
X1and X2 are N
X3 is CR55
R55is a hydrogen
Ar51 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
Ar52 is a substituted C6 aryl group
L51 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group
Tasaki fails to teach a first dopant that reads on Formula 3. However, Tasaki teaches that the dopant material is not particularly limited to the ones disclosed (para. [0341]).
Kim teaches a boron polycyclic compound, similar to the compounds of Tasaki, Chemical Formula 1, for an organic light emitting device having high efficiency, low voltage, and long lifespan (Page 3, Effects of the Invention para.). Kim teaches that compounds of Chemical Formula 1 may be used as dopants in the emission layer (Page 142, para. 5). Kim also teaches that emission layers including these compounds have a maximum emission peak from about 380 nm to about 500 nm, thus the emission layer is a blue emission layer (Page 142, para. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
363
1211
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches compound
PNG
media_image3.png
166
262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as a specific compound of Chemical Formula 1 that reads on Formula 3 of instant application. Where in the claimed Formula 3,
b1 to b3 is 1
X is S
Ar11 is a substituted C6 aryl group
Ar12 is a substituted C12 heteroaryl group
R11 is a C6 aryl group
Two adjacent R12s are connected to each other to form a substituted cycloalkyl ring
R13 is an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first dopant of Tasaki with a compound of Chemical Formula 1 of Kim. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the first dopant in the first emitting layer of the OLED of Tasaki and possess the benefits taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the boron polycyclic compound of Kim depicted above, because it would have been choosing one suitable boron polycyclic compound, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the first dopant in the first emitting layer of the OLED device of Tasaki and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising a boron polycyclic compound having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tasaki further teaches wherein the first dopant is represented by Formula 3a
PNG
media_image4.png
357
1210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Formula 3a,
X, R11, R12, and R13 are the defined as for Formula 3 in claim 1 above in Paragraph 7
b4 is 4
b5 and b6 are 0
Two adjacent R14s are connected to each other to form a substituted form a substituted cycloalkyl group
Two adjacent R14s are connected to each other to for an unsubstituted heteroaryl group
Regarding claim 4, modified Tasaki further teaches wherein the second dopant is compound BD-3 that reads on Formula 7
PNG
media_image5.png
628
1210
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed formula,
f1 to f3 are 1
Ar31 and Ar32 are a substituted C6 aryl group
R31 and R32 are an unsubstituted C4 alkyl group
R33 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group
Regarding claim 5, modified Tasaki teaches the organic light emitting diode according to claim 4 as described above in Paragraph 9.
In Example 29 Tasaki fails to teach wherein the second dopant, compound BD-3, is represented by Formula 7a. However, Tasaki teaches that compound BD-3 is a specific compound of formula (41) (para. [0548]), and that compounds from formula (41) are suitable dopants for the OLED.
The last compound in page 399 of Tasaki is a compound of formula (41). This compound reads in Formula 7a.
PNG
media_image6.png
632
1100
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Formula 7a R34 to R39 are unsubstituted C1 alkyl groups.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Tasaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute compound Bd-3 with the last compound of page 399 of Tasaki. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as the second dopant in the second emitting layer of the OLED of Tasaki and possess the benefits taught by Tasaki. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the last compound of page 399 of Tasaki, because it would have been choosing one compound over another, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second dopant in the second emitting layer of the OLED of Tasaki and possessing the benefits taught by Tasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the last compound of page 399 of Tasaki having the benefits taught by Tasaki in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tasaki further teaches wherein the second dopant is
PNG
media_image7.png
476
551
media_image7.png
Greyscale
which is compound BD1-A1
PNG
media_image8.png
341
311
media_image8.png
Greyscale
of Formula 8 (as depicted for claim 5 above in Paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tasaki further teaches wherein the first host (compound D-BH-1) is represented by Formula 1 and wherein the second host (compound BH-1) is represented by Formula 5,
PNG
media_image9.png
557
1209
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Formula 1,
a1 to a3 and a5 are 0
a4 is 8
Ar1 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene group
Ar2 is an unsubstituted C12 aryl group
PNG
media_image10.png
656
1209
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Formula 5,
e1 to e5 is 0 and the summation of e1 to e4 (0) is smaller than the summation of a1 to a4 in Formula 1 (8)
Ar21 is an unsubstituted C6 arylene group
Ar22 and Ar23 are an unsubstituted C12 aryl group
Regarding claim 8, modified Tasaki teaches the organic light emitting diode according to claim 7 as described above in Paragraph 12.
In Example 29 Tasaki fails to teach wherein the first host, compound D-BH-1, is represented by Formula 1a or that the second host, compound BH-1, is represented by Formula 5a. However, Tasaki teaches that compounds D-BH-1 and compound BH-1 are specific compounds of formula (1A) (para. [0239]). Compounds in formula (1A) are suitable compounds for host materials in the OLED. Within the compounds in formula (1A), Tasaki teaches the last compound of Page 29, that can serve as the first host and reads on Formula 1a of instant application. Additionally, Tasaki teaches the third compound of the left column in Page 45, that can serve as the second host and reads on Formula 5a of instant application.
PNG
media_image11.png
389
1212
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Formula 1a,
a1 is 4
a2 is 7
a3 is 7
a4 is 8
PNG
media_image12.png
413
1210
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein the claimed Formula 5a,
e1 is 0
e2 is 0
e3 is 0
e4 is 8
the summation of e1 to 24 (8) is smaller than the summation of a1 to a4 (26) in Formula 1a.
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Tasaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute compound D-BH-1 for the last compound of page 29 of Tasaki, and compound BH-1 for the third compound in the left column of page 45 of Tasaki. The substitution would have been one preferred element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound would be useful as first and second host in the first and second emitting layers layer of the OLED of Tasaki and possess the benefits taught by Tasaki. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to elect the last compound of page 29 of Tasaki as the first host and the third compound of the left column of page 45 of Tasaki as the second host, because it would have been choosing one host for another, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the first and second host in the first and second emitting layers layer of the OLED device of Tasaki and possessing the benefits taught by Tasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the last compound of page 29 of Tasaki as the first host and the third compound of the left column of page 45 of Tasaki as the second host having the benefits taught by Tasaki in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 9, further modified Tasaki further teaches wherein the first host is
PNG
media_image13.png
345
627
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, which is compound BH3_D4
PNG
media_image14.png
432
573
media_image14.png
Greyscale
of Formula 2 (as defined for claim 8 in paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 10, further modified Tasaki further teaches wherein the second host is
PNG
media_image15.png
346
558
media_image15.png
Greyscale
, which is compound BH3_D1
PNG
media_image16.png
425
518
media_image16.png
Greyscale
of Formula 6 (as defined for claim 8 in paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tasaki further teaches wherein the electron transporting material is
PNG
media_image17.png
624
723
media_image17.png
Greyscale
which is compound ETL1
PNG
media_image18.png
495
373
media_image18.png
Greyscale
of Formula 10.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20220074408 A, relying on WIPO English Translation) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0185632 A1, referred to as Kim '632) and Fleetham and Weaver (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6582-7_1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tasaki teaches the organic light emitting diode according to claim 4 as described above in Paragraph 9. However, modified Tasaki is silent in respect to the HOMO levels of the first dopant, second dopant, and the electron transporting material.
Kim ‘632 teaches and OLED that includes two dopants in the emitting layer whose energy levels are controlled (abstract). Kim ‘632 teaches that the HOMO energy level of the host is lower than the HOMO level of the first dopant (para. [0079]), and that the HOMO level of the first dopant is lower than the HOMO level of the second dopant (para. [0081]). Accordingly, an excited complex, is formed between the first dopant trapping holes and the second dopant absorbing electron excitons, ultimate light emission peak is shifted toward longer wavelength ranges, and luminous life span of the dopants are reduced (para. [0083]). Additionally, Kim ‘632 teaches that when the HOMO energy level of the first dopant is equal to or shallower than the HOMO energy level of the second dopant, the holes injected via the host are trapped at the first dopant (para. [0083]), as opposed to the relationship claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a second dopant with a lower HOMO energy level than the first dopant, because Kim ‘632 teaches the benefits of having the claimed differences in the HOMO energy level of two dopants in the emitting layer.
Kim ‘632 is silent in respect to the different between the HOMO levels of the dopants and the electron transport material.
Fleetham and Weaver teach a Typical OLED device stack (Fig. 2a) and energy level diagram for OLEDs (Fig. 2b). The generic energy band diagram for the OLED confirms the HOMO levels of the electron transporting layer (therefore electron transporting material) are lower than the HOMO levels of the emissive layer (where the dopants are located).
PNG
media_image19.png
359
524
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize electron transporting materials with a lower HOMO level than that of the dopants in the OLED device. One of ordinary skilled in the art would provide the claimed relationship which is shown above as a typical energetic relationship between layers in an OLED.
Claims 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20220074408 A, relying on WIPO English Translation) as applied to claim 1-2, 4-10, and 14 above, and further in view of Shin (US 2018/0166647 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tasaki teaches the organic light emitting diode according to claim 4 as described above in Paragraph 9.
Tasaki teaches a tandem OLED (Figure 3, para. [0221]) and that a tandem type structure is expected to result in high brightness and long lifetime of the device. However, Tasaki’s second emitting part does not specifically include a third and fourth blue emitting layer.
Shin teaches a tandem structure white OLED device (para. [0006]). Shin teaches a charge generation layer between a first and second emitting part (para. [008]). Additionally, Shin teaches that the first emitting layer may emit blue light (para. [0066]) and that the second emitting material layer may include a blue emitting material layer (para. [0067]). Shin also teaches that the third emitting material layer may have the same property as the first emitting material layer or the second emitting material layer (para. [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a stacked tandem structure OLED by duplicating the first emitting part of Tasaki to obtain a second emitting part including the structure of the first emitting part, its layers, hosts, and dopants. This combination would have been obvious because Shin teaches that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
By duplicating the first emitting part of Tasaki, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been able to have third blue emitting layer (a duplicate of the first emitting layer) and a fourth blue emitting layer (a duplicate of the second emitting layer) with the same properties of the first and second emitting layers, positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode, and the fourth blue emitting layer positioned between the third blue emitting layer and the second electrode and contacting the third blue emitting layer.
By duplicating the first emitting part of Tasaki, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to provide a third blue emitting layer that includes a third host anthracene derivative
PNG
media_image20.png
499
726
media_image20.png
Greyscale
with a deuteration ratio of ~31% and a third dopant
PNG
media_image21.png
207
285
media_image21.png
Greyscale
(these combination is the same one depicted for claim 1 and claim 4 above in paragraphs 7 and 9) represented by Formula 3 as defined above for claim 1 in Paragraph 7.
By duplicating the first emitting part of Tasaki, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to provide a fourth blue emitting layer that includes a fourth host anthracene derivative
PNG
media_image22.png
328
564
media_image22.png
Greyscale
having a deuteration ratio of 0% and a fourth dopant
PNG
media_image23.png
541
672
media_image23.png
Greyscale
(these combination is the same one depicted for claim 1 and claim 4 above in paragraphs 7 and 9) represented by Formula 7 as defined above for claim 4 in Paragraph 9.
Regarding claim 12, further modified Tasaki teaches wherein the third dopant
PNG
media_image21.png
207
285
media_image21.png
Greyscale
is represented by Formula 3a as defined for claim 2 above in Paragraph 8. Further modified Tasaki also teaches wherein the fourth dopant
PNG
media_image7.png
476
551
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is represented by Formula 7a as defined for claim 5 above in Paragraph 10.
Regarding claim 13, further modified Tasaki teaches wherein the third host
PNG
media_image24.png
499
726
media_image24.png
Greyscale
is represented by Formula 1 and the fourth host is represented by Formula 5
PNG
media_image25.png
328
564
media_image25.png
Greyscale
as defined for claim 7 above in Paragraph 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, The closest prior art on record, Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 20220074408 A), teach the organic light emitting diode of claim 1 and teaches the use of a two anthracene host and two boron polycyclic dopant system. However, the teachings of Tasaki include only one boron polycyclic dopant that does not read on any of the compounds shown In Formula 4 of instant application. The teachings of Kim require the use of a dibenzofuran or dibenzothiophene as one of the nitrogen substituents in the boron polycyclic dopant. Therefore, the closest prior art on record does not teach the specific compound structures of Formula 4 in claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights