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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on February 2, 2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on October 6, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on September 13, 2024 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is directed to a light-emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode and two emission layers formed on top of one another, wherein the first emission layer comprises a phosphorescent emitter and the second emission layer comprises a fluorescent emitter and a phosphorescent emitter. The claim only requires that the decay time Tdecay(1) of the first emission layer is shorter than a decay time Tdecay(2) of the second emission layer. No structures are required by the claim. However, in the instant specification, all the fluorescent dopants shown contain a polycyclic core. Additionally, Applicant has only provided one example of a device meeting the claimed limitations, where the device contains a first emission layer with a specific phosphorescent emitter, and a second emission layer with the same phosphorescent emitter and a specific fluorescent emitter. In Comparative Example 3, the instant specification shows a device with the same compounds, that differ from Example 1 only in the thicknesses of the layers. The instant specification only measures the decay time for Example 1. Therefore, it is not clear if the thickness of the layers in Comparative Example 3 has affected the relative decay times or not, as they have not been measured. Furthermore, Applicant has not shown or taught in the instant specification how to pair compounds so that they will meet the claimed relationship or what components are critical. It is not clear whether a device with two different phosphorescent emitters that meets the limitations has been envisioned by Applicant as Applicant has not provided any direction in instant specification as to what components of each compound are required to meet the claimed relationship. It is also not clear whether a device with a non-polycylic heterocycle fluorescent molecule that meets the limitations has been envisioned by Applicant as Applicant has not provided in direction in the instant specification as to what components of the fluorescent emitter are required to meet the claimed relationship. As a result, the teachings of the instant specification are much narrower than the combination of any two phosphorescent dopants, identical or different, and any fluorescent dopant, as described in claim 1 in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, it is unclear that Applicant had possession of any and all combination of compounds that would meet the claimed limitations. As such, it does not appear that Applicant has provided a sufficient number of species to adequately reflect the claimed genus as required by the MPEP (See 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 2 – 20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20230200228A1) in view of Fleetham (US20220246851A1).
As per claims 1 and 7 – 15, Kim teaches:
A light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode facing the anode, a first emission layer arranged on the anode and a second emission layer arranged on the first emission layer ([0026]: “In an embodiment, an organic light emitting diode can comprise a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and an emissive layer disposed between the first and second electrodes and comprising at least one emitting material layer, wherein the at least one emitting material layer comprises a first emitting material layer and a second emitting material layer, wherein the second emitting material layer is disposed adjacently to the first emitting material layer.”)
Comprising a first phosphorescent emitter in the first emission layer (Kim teaches that the first emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent material (Abstract). Examples of particular phosphorescent compounds taught by Kim include compound 2-1
PNG
media_image1.png
164
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0124]). This compound reads on Formula 3 of claim 7 wherein M31 is a transition metal, namely Pt as required by claim 7; X34 is N and X31 to X33 are both C; CY31 is a C7 heterocyclic group, namely a benzimidazole group as required by claim 10; CY32 and CY33 are a both a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 10; CY34 is a C5 heterocyclic group, namely a pyridine group as required by claim 10; L31 is a single bond and n31 is 1; L32 is O and n32 is 1; L33 is N and n33 is 1; n34 is 0 so that L34 does not exist; R31 is a C1 alkyl group and b31 is 1; R33 is a substituted C6 aryl group and b33 is 1; the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula 3-1 in claim 11.)
Comprising a first fluorescent emitter in the second emission layer (Kim teaches that the second emitting material layer comprises a fluorescent material ([0105]). A particular fluorescent emitter taught by Kim is compound 4-1
PNG
media_image2.png
142
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0140]). This compound reads on Formula 4 in claim 13 wherein Z is B; CY41 to CY43 are all a C6 carbocyclic group; L41 and L42 are N(R44) and n41 and n42 are 1; n43 is 0 so that L43 does not exist: R44 is a C6 aryl group and the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula 4-1 in claim 15.)
Kim does not teach that the second emission layer comprises a second phosphorescent emitter.
Fleetham teaches OLEDs with an emissive region comprising a first and second compound wherein the first compound is a phosphorescent emitter and the second compound is a fluorescent emitter (Abstract). Fleetham teaches that by using a combination of compounds, the phosphorescent emitter can transfer energy to the second compound, creating an emission layer with a short transient time while also efficiently harvesting all or the majority of the electrogenerated singlets and triplets ([0061]). A particular fluorescent compound taught by Fleetham is
PNG
media_image3.png
152
226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0211]), which is the same compound as a particular fluorescent dopant of Kim. A particular sensitizer compound taught by Fleetham is
PNG
media_image4.png
216
252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0211]). This sensitizer reads on Formula 3 of claim 7 wherein M31 is a transition metal, namely Pt as required by claim 7; X34 is N and X31 to X33 are both C; CY31 is a C7 heterocyclic group, namely a benzimidazole group as required by claim 10; CY32 and CY33 are a both a C6 carbocyclic group, namely a benzene group as required by claim 10; CY34 is a C5 heterocyclic group, namely a pyridine group as required by claim 10; L31 is a single bond and n31 is 1; L32 is O and n32 is 1; L33 is N and n33 is 1; n34 is 0 so that L34 does not exist; R31 is a substituted C6 aryl group and b31 is 1; R33 is a substituted C6 aryl group and b33 is 1; R34 is a C4 alkyl group and b34 is 1; the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula 3-1 in claim 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second phosphorescent emitter in the second emission layer of the device of Kim, motivated by the desire to predictably create an emission layer with a short transient time while also efficiently harvesting all or the majority of the electrogenerated singlets and triplets as taught by Fleetham ([0061]).
As per claims 1, 19 and 20, the prior art combination is silent with respect to the decay time of the first emission layer and the decay time of the second emission layer. However, the prior art combination teaches the same composition claimed and the specific composition is similar to the composition in Example 1 of the instant specification. Therefore, the property of decay time is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
As per claims 2 and 3, Kim teaches:
Wherein the first emission layer and the second emission layer each comprise one of a first host or a second host ([0105]: “The EML1 242 includes the first compound (Compound 1) of the first host… The EML2 244 includes the third compound (Compound 3) of the second host.”)
Wherein the first host is a hole transporting host and the second host is an electron transporting host (As the first host and second host will either transport holes or electrons, it is the Examiner’s position that they can be classified as a hole transporting host or an electron transporting host as claimed.)
As per claims 4 – 6, Kim teaches:
Wherein the first host comprises at least one carbazole moiety and the first host comprises a compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image5.png
388
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches that the host in the EML1 layer can be selected from
PNG
media_image6.png
144
326
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. This compound contains a carbazole group as required by claim 4, and reads on Formula 1 wherein CY11 and CY12 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; k1 is 0 so that E1 does not exist; n11 is 0 so that the second carbazole group does not exist; b11 and b12 are 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist; b15 is 1 and R15 is an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group. As the claims do not require both the first and second host, the first layer of Kim meets the limitations of claim 6.)
While Kim teaches that there is a second host material in EML2, Kim does not limit the host material of the second emission layer. Kim does not specifically teach:
Wherein the second host comprises at least one azine moiety and the second host comprises a compound represented by Formula 2
PNG
media_image7.png
216
382
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fleetham teaches that the emission layer with a combination of a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant may contain a host material ([0105]). Fleetham teaches that the host material may be selected from compounds including
PNG
media_image8.png
192
268
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0112]). This compound contains the azine moiety as required by claim 4 and reads on the compound of Formula 2 wherein CY23 is a C6 carbocyclic group, CY24 is a C12 heterocyclic group; X21 to X23 are N; L21 and L22 are a single bond; n21 and n22 are 1; R21, R22 and R24 are each a C6 aryl group; b21, b22, and b24 are 1. As the claims do not require both the first and second host, when modified to contain the compound above, the second layer meets the limitations of claim 5.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any known host material, such as that claimed, as the host material of the second emissive layer containing a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant because Kim does not restrict the dopant used in the emission layer and Fleetham teaches that triazinyl-based hosts were known as predictably suitable host materials for emission layers containing both a fluorescent dopant and a phosphorescent dopant ([0105] & [0112]).
As per claims 16 and 18, the prior art combination does not restrict the thickness of the emission layers. Therefore, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust and vary the thicknesses of the layers, to an amount claimed.
As per claim 17, Kim teaches:
Wherein a thickness of the first emission layer is less than or equal to half of a total thickness of the first emission layer and the second emission layer (In Device Example 1, as described in [0245], the thickness of each of the emission layers are taught to be 15 nm, therefore the thickness of the first emission layer is equal to half a total thickness as claimed.)
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights