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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 in parent application 16/304,532.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on each of 01/16/2024, 02/24/2024, and 11/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least a chemical structure formula (1) and (2) should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20160133857-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") in view of Kyushu University “Lifetime Breakthrough Promising for Low-Cost and Efficient Displays and Lights” (hereinafter "Kyushu") and Kim et al. US-20040100190-A1 (hereinafter “Kim-190”).
It is noted that US-20160133857-A1 and US-20040100190-A1 are cited on the IDS of 02/14/2024.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 11, Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an organic layer that is disposed between a first electrode and a second electrode and including an emission layer; wherein the organic layer includes the compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0022] and ¶ [0009]), wherein the organic layer may further include a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and/or an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode (¶ [0068]). Kim teaches specific examples of the organic light-emitting device including Example 17 (see Table 1 on page 41) comprising an emission layer consisting of 98 wt% Compound 67 and 2 wt% TPD (¶ [0251]-[0256]). TPD is a blue fluorescent dopant (¶ [0254]), which is a light emitting material, and Compound 67 is a host (¶ [0253], [0256]). The Compound 67 meets the claimed Formula (1) (see below).
Compound 67 of Kim reproduced below for comparison to Formula (I) of the instant claim.
Formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
279
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 67:
PNG
media_image2.png
644
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen from the structure above, Kim’s Compound 67 is a compound represented by the claimed Formula (1) wherein:
Ar1 to Ar3 are each an aryl groups (a phenyl group) substituted at a para position with a group having a skeleton represented by the claimed Formula (2);
Ar1 to Ar3 do not contain a 4-(benzofuran-1-yl)carbazole-9-yl group or a 4-(benzothiophen-1-yl)carbazole-9-yl group;
X is in each case O;
R1 is a bonding position, R2 is hydrogen, R3 is a substituent, R4 is a substituent, R5 is hydrogen, R6 is a substituent, R7 is a substituent, and R8 is hydrogen, wherein R3 and R4 bond to each other to form a cyclic structure and R6 and R7 bond to each other to form a cyclic structure.
Kim does not specifically teach a device as described above wherein the light emitting material is a delayed fluorescent material. However, Kim teaches that the emission layer may include a host and a suitable fluorescent dopant (¶ [0123]–[0125]).
Kyushu teaches that fluorescent light-emitting molecules for use in OLEDs are low cost but can only use about 25% of electrical charges while phosphorescent materials for use in OLEDs can harvest 100% of charges but include expensive metals such as platinum or iridium (page 2, first paragraph). Kyushu also teaches that through clever molecular design, thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) materials can convert nearly all of the electrical charges to light without the expensive metal used in phosphorescent materials, making both high efficiency and low cost possible (page 2, third paragraph). Kyushu suggests that TADF materials are very stable which makes them promising for applications in displays and lighting (page 2, eleventh paragraph).
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 the dopant in the device of Example 17 of Kim with a TADF material of Kyushu, based on the teaching of Kyushu. The motivation for doing so would have been to harvest the benefits of its low-cost efficiency and stability, as taught by Kyushu.
The emission layer of the modified device of Kim in view of Kyushu comprises the thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) material of Kyushu as the dopant material, which is the light emitting material, and therefore the device emits delayed fluorescence. The content of the Compound 67 in the emission layer of the modified device of Kim in view of Kyushu is 98 wt% which falls within the claimed range of “more than 50% by weight”.
Kim in view of Kyushu does not specifically teach a device as described above wherein a compound represented by the claimed Formula (1) is present in a layer adjacent to the emission layer. However, Kim teaches that the electron transport region, between the cathode and the emission layer, may comprise a hole blocking layer (¶ [0069], ¶ [0142]).
Kim-190 teaches an OLED having an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant and a non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer adjacent to the emission layer comprising only the host (see Abstract, ¶ [0001]), on the cathode side (¶ [0024], Fig. 1a). Kim-190 teaches that such an arrangement improves luminescence efficiency and simplifies the manufacturing process since an additional hole blocking material is not required (see Abstract, ¶ [0022]–[0023], ¶ [0043], and ¶ [0045]–[0046]).
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 modified device of Example 17 of Kim in view of Kyushu to further include a non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer adjacent to the emission layer on the cathode side comprising the host Compound 67 of Kim, based on the teaching of Kim-190. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain improved luminescence efficiency with a simplified manufacturing process, as taught by Kim-190.
The modified device of Kim in view of Kyushu and Kim-190 comprises a layer adjacent to the emission layer comprising the host Compound 67 of Kim, which is a compound represented by the claimed Formula (1), as described above.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20160133857-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") in view of Kyushu University “Lifetime Breakthrough Promising for Low-Cost and Efficient Displays and Lights” (hereinafter "Kyushu") and Kim et al. US-20040100190-A1 (hereinafter “Kim-190”).
Regarding claims 12-17, Kim in view of Kyushu and Kim-190 teach the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Kim in view of Kyushu and Kim-190 does not specifically teaches a device as discussed above wherein the emitting material in the light emitting layer emit delayed fluorescence. However, Kim teaches the dopant of the emission layer may be any suitable dopant (¶ [0123]-[0125]).
Tao teaches TADF emitters can realize highly efficient luminescence through utilizing the delay fluorescence (page 7937, first column, first paragraph) and when applied as doped emitters, their OLED performance (EQE > 20%) can be comparable with the phosphorescent counterparts containing rare-metals (page 7955, second column). Tao teaches examples of the TADF compounds on pages 7940 to 7953.
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 the emitting dopant in the device of Kim in view of Kyushu and Kim-190 with one of the TADF compounds recited by Tao, based on the teaching of Tao. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize highly efficient luminescence through utilizing the delay fluorescence, as taught by Tao.
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20160133857-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") in view of Kim et al. US-20040100190-A1 (hereinafter “Kim-190”) and Tanimoto et al. WO-2016017514-A1 (see machine translation referred to as "Tanimoto-MT").
It is noted that US-20160133857-A1 and US-20040100190-A1 are cited on the IDS of 02/14/2024.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 10-11, Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an organic layer that is disposed between a first electrode and a second electrode and including an emission layer; wherein the organic layer includes the compound represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0022] and ¶ [0009]), wherein the organic layer may further include a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, and/or an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode (¶ [0068]). Kim teaches specific examples of the organic light-emitting device including Example 17 (see Table 1 on page 41) comprising an emission layer consisting of 98 wt% Compound 67 and 2 wt% TPD (¶ [0251]-[0256]). TPD is a blue fluorescent dopant (¶ [0254]), which is a light emitting material, and Compound 67 is a host (¶ [0253], [0256]). The Compound 67 meets the claimed Formula (1) (see below).
Compound 67 of Kim reproduced below for comparison to Formula (I) of the instant claim.
Formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
279
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 67:
PNG
media_image2.png
644
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen from the structure above, Kim’s Compound 67 is a compound represented by the claimed Formula (1) wherein:
Ar1 to Ar3 are each an aryl groups (a phenyl group) substituted at a para position with a group having a skeleton represented by the claimed Formula (2);
Ar1 to Ar3 do not contain a 4-(benzofuran-1-yl)carbazole-9-yl group or a 4-(benzothiophen-1-yl)carbazole-9-yl group;
X is in each case O;
R1 is a bonding position, R2 is hydrogen, R3 is a substituent, R4 is a substituent, R5 is hydrogen, R6 is a substituent, R7 is a substituent, and R8 is hydrogen, wherein R3 and R4 bond to each other to form a cyclic structure and R6 and R7 bond to each other to form a cyclic structure.
Kim does not specifically teach a device as described above wherein a compound represented by the claimed Formula (1) is present in a layer adjacent to the emission layer. However, Kim teaches that the electron transport region, between the cathode and the emission layer, may comprise a hole blocking layer (¶ [0069], ¶ [0142]).
Kim-190 teaches an OLED having an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant and a non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer adjacent to the emission layer comprising only the host (see Abstract, ¶ [0001]), on the cathode side (¶ [0024], Fig. 1a). Kim-190 teaches that such an arrangement improves luminescence efficiency and simplifies the manufacturing process since an additional hole blocking material is not required (see Abstract, ¶ [0022]–[0023], ¶ [0043], and ¶ [0045]–[0046]).
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 modified device of Example 17 of Kim to further include a non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer adjacent to the emission layer on the cathode side comprising the host Compound 67 of Kim, based on the teaching of Kim-190. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain improved luminescence efficiency with a simplified manufacturing process, as taught by Kim-190.
The modified device of Kim in view of Kim-190 comprises a layer adjacent to the emission layer comprising the host Compound 67 of Kim, which is a compound represented by the claimed Formula (1), as described above.
Kim in view of Kim-190 does not specifically teach a device as described above wherein the emission layer comprises a delayed fluorescent material as an assist dopant.
Tanimoto teaches that when a light emitting layer composed of a host compound and a light emitting compound contains a compound exhibiting TADF properties as a third component (hereinafter also referred to as an assist dopant) in the light emitting layer, it is effective for high luminous efficiency (page 2 of 57, lines 32-34). Tanimoto teaches that the energy of the singlet exciton is transferred to the light emitting compound, and the light emitting compound can emit light, therefore, theoretically, it becomes possible to cause the luminescent compound to emit light using 100% exciton energy, and high luminous efficiency is exhibited (page 2 of 57, lines 37-40).
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 incorporate a compound exhibiting TADF properties as a third component (an assist dopant) into the emission layer of the device of Example 17 of Kim in view of Kim-190, based on the teaching of Tanimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high luminous efficiency, as taught by Tanimoto.
The modified device of Kim in view of Kim-190 and Tanimoto comprises an emission layer comprising the TADF assist dopant, the host Compound 67 of Kim, which is a compound represented by the claimed Formula (1), as described above and the blue fluorescent dopant TPD.
Claims 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20160133857-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") in view of Kim et al. US-20040100190-A1 (hereinafter “Kim-190”) and Tanimoto et al. WO-2016017514-A1 (see machine translation referred to as "Tanimoto-MT") as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Tao et al. Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 7931–7958 (hereinafter "Tao").
Regarding claims 9 and 12-17, Kim in view of Kim-190 and Tanimoto teach the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Kim in view of Kim-190 and Tanimoto does not specifically teaches a device as discussed above wherein the emitting material in the light emitting layer emit delayed fluorescence. However, Kim teaches the dopant of the emission layer may be any suitable dopant (¶ [0123]-[0125]).
Tao teaches TADF emitters can realize highly efficient luminescence through utilizing the delay fluorescence (page 7937, first column, first paragraph) and when applied as doped emitters, their OLED performance (EQE > 20%) can be comparable with the phosphorescent counterparts containing rare-metals (page 7955, second column). Tao teaches examples of the TADF compounds on pages 7940 to 7953.
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 the emitting dopant in the device of Kim in view of Kim-190 and Tanimoto with one of the TADF compounds recited by Tao, based on the teaching of Tao. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize highly efficient luminescence through utilizing the delay fluorescence, as taught by Tao.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights