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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/27/2026 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 47 are amended and claim 69 is cancelled due to Applicant's amendment dated 10/27/2025. Claims 1, 11, 13, 15-16, 20-24, 26, 38, 43, 47, and 67 are pending and claim 67 is withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The objection and rejection of claim 69 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claim 69 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 10/27/2025.
The objection to claims 1 and 47 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 10/27/2025.
The rejection of claims 1, 11, 26, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Adamovich (US 2015/0295197 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/27/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich in view of Xia (US 2014/0158992 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/27/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich in view of Adamovich ‘061 (US 2007/0247061 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/27/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 16, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich in view of Hu (English translation of CN 109192884 A obtained from Global Dossier) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/27/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 21 and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/27/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich in view of So (US 2014/0077172 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/27/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich in view of Park (US 2003/0042848 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 10/27/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-14 of the reply dated 10/27/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 11, 13, 15-16, 20-24, 26, 38, 43, 47, and 67 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended which require a partially or fully deuterated compound as the electron-exciton blocking material.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail below, the newly cited reference Li (US 2002/0076576 A1) provides motivation to deuterate Adamovich’s compound H1. Accordingly, the cited references meet the claims as amended.
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, 11, 26, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2015/0295197 A1) in view of Li (US 2002/0076576 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 26, and 38, Adamovich teaches OLEDs having very high efficiency and long lifetime, wherein an example thereof includes Model Device 1 (abstract; ¶ [0082]; Table 3A on pg. 80; ¶ [0146]-[148]). Model Device 1 includes an anode, a hole insertion (injection) layer of HAT-CN, a hole transport layer of NPD, an electron blocking layer of compound H1, an organic emissive layer comprising the emitting compound B1, a hole blocking layer of compound E1, an electron transport layer of Alq3, an electron insertion (injection) layer of LiF, and a cathode (¶ [0015] and [0146]-[0148]; Table 3A on pg. 80). Compound H1 is reproduced below (see structure on pg. 79).
H1:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound H1 fails to be partially or fully deuterated. However, Adamovich teaches any compound used in the OLED may be partially or fully deuterated (¶ [0143]).
Li teaches deuterated organic semiconductor materials have improved performance and stability compared to their non-deuterated analogues, and devices prepared with deuterated organic semiconductor materials have brighter luminance and better thermal stability compared to non-deuterated organic semiconductor materials (abstract; ¶ [0023] and [0077]). The deuterated organic semiconductor materials may possess charge injection and exciton blocking properties (¶ [0011]).
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 deuterate compound H1, based on the teaching of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a compound with improved performance and stability and to provide a device with brighter luminance and better thermal stability, as taught by Li.
The deuterated compound H1 reads on the claimed compound wherein the compound is partially or fully deuterated.
Per claim 11, the compound B1 emits phosphorescence (abstract and ¶ [0147]).
Per claims 26 and 38, the electron blocking layer has a thickness of 50 Å (5 nm) and is in direct contact with the organic emissive layer (¶ [0148]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2015/0295197 A1) in view of Li (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xia (US 2014/0158992 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Adamovich in view of Li teach the modified Model Device 1 including the organic emissive layer comprising the emitting compound B1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Adamovich is silent as to the device emitting a luminescent radiation at room temperature when a voltage is applied across the device. However, Adamovich teaches additional dopants may be present and any suitable emission principles including thermally activated delayed fluorescent may be implemented in the device (¶ [0084], [0094], and [0102]).
Xia teaches carbazole-containing compounds represented by Formula I for use as a thermally activated delayed fluorescence emitting compound in an emissive layer of an OLED device (abstract; ¶ [0015], [0022], [0060]). Xia teaches devices including compounds of Formula I show improved EQE (¶ [0099]). Additionally, Xia teaches such a device emits a luminescent radiation at room temperature when a voltage is applied across the device, wherein the luminescent radiation comprises a delayed fluorescence process (abstract; ¶ [0032]).
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 provide a compound of Xia’s Formula I in the organic emissive layer of Adamovich, based on the teaching of Xia. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved EQE, as taught by Xia.
The resulting device therefore emits a luminescent radiation at room temperature when a voltage is applied across the device, wherein the luminescent radiation comprises a delayed fluorescence process.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2015/0295197 A1) in view of Li (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adamovich ‘061 (US 2007/0247061 A1), supporting evidence provided by Jung (Jung, Sung-Ouk, et al. "Structure and DFT Calculation of fac-Tris (3-methyl-2-phenylpyridine) Ir (III) Complex." Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society 24.10 (2003): 1521-1524.)
Regarding claim 15, Adamovich in view of Li teach the modified Model Device 1 including the organic emissive layer comprising the emitting compound B1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
The organic emissive layer fails to include a second emissive dopant. However, Adamovich teaches additional dopants may be present (¶ [0084] and [0094]).
Adamovich ‘061 teaches an organic light emitting device including an emissive layer comprising a host compound and two compounds capable of phosphorescent emission at room temperature, wherein the triplet energy of the first compound is greater than or equal to the triplet energy of the second compound, and wherein at least 95 percent of emission from the device is produced form the second compound when an appropriate voltage is applied across the anode and cathode (abstract and ¶ [0025]). The use of two or more phosphorescent dopants significantly improves the performance of the device including the luminous efficiency, stability, and lifetime (¶ [0079]).
Adamovich ‘061 teaches examples of suitable phosphorescent compounds including Green-2, as shown in Fig. 23 and used in the device of Example 3 (¶ [0130]).
Green-2:
PNG
media_image2.png
136
126
media_image2.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 further include in the organic emissive layer a second compound capable of phosphorescent emission at room temperature, wherein the second compound has a triplet energy less than or equal to the triplet energy of the compound B1, and wherein at least 95 percent of emission from the device is produced from the second compound when an appropriate voltage is applied across the anode and cathode, based on the teaching of Adamovich ‘061. The motivation for doing so would have been to significantly improve the luminous efficiency, stability, and lifetime of the device, as taught by Adamovich ‘061.
In particular, 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 Green-2 as the second phosphorescent compound, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable phosphorescent compounds taught by Adamovich ‘061, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the device of Adamovich in view of Li and possessing the benefits taught by Adamovich ‘061. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising a second phosphorescent compound having the benefits taught by Adamovich ‘061 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As evidenced by Jung, Green-2 has a singlet energy of 2.9 eV and a triplet energy of 2.6 eV (pg. 1523, left column). Thus the energy gap of S1-T1 is 0.3 eV (300 meV).
Claims 16, 20, and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2015/0295197 A1) in view of Li (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (English translation of CN 109192884 A obtained from Global Dossier), supporting evidence provided by Ishimatsu (Ishimatsu, Ryoichi, et al. "Solvent effect on thermally activated delayed fluorescence by 1, 2, 3, 5-tetrakis (carbazol-9-yl)-4, 6-dicyanobenzene." The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 117.27 (2013): 5607-5612.); and Parham (US 2017/0084844 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 20, and 22, Adamovich in view of Li teach the modified Model Device 1 including the organic emissive layer comprising the emitting compound B1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
The emitting compound B1 fails to comprise a donor group and an acceptor group. However, Adamovich teaches the device includes an emitting compound capable of phosphorescence, wherein the emitting compound may be capable of red phosphorescent emission (abstract; ¶ [0043]). Additionally, Adamovich teaches additional dopants may be present (abstract; ¶ [0043], [0084], and [0094]).
Hu teaches an OLED emitting red light and having improved service life and stability by including an auxiliary doping material of 4CzIPN in a light emitting layer in addition to a phosphorescent guest material (middle of pg. 1). Hu teaches an example of a device wherein the phosphorescent guest material is Hex-Ir(phq)2(acac) (middle of pg. 2).
Therefore, in the device of Adamovich, 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 compound B1 with the emitting compound Hex-Ir(phq)2(acac), and to further provide the auxiliary doping material of 4CzIPN in the organic emissive layer, as shown in the device of Hu , based on the teaching of Hu. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a red-emitting device with improved service life and stability, as taught by Hu.
4CzIPN reads on the claimed first emissive dopant. As evidenced by Ishimatsu, 4CzIPN has the structure below (see Ishimatsu, abstract). Per claim 16, as evidenced by Parham, a cyano group is an example of an acceptor group and a carbazole group is an example of a donor group (see Parham, ¶ [0024]-[0025]). Per claim 20, Ishimatsu recites 4CzIPN has an energy gap (ΔEst) of less than 200 meV (see Table 4 on pg. 5610). Additionally, per claim 22, 4CzIPN comprises a nitrile group.
4CzIPN:
PNG
media_image3.png
195
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 21 and 23-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2015/0295197 A1) in view of Li (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0346029 A1), supporting evidence provided by Ossila (TTPA, Ossila, 2025).
Regarding claims 21 and 23-24, Adamovich in view of Li teach the modified Model Device 1 including the organic emissive layer comprising the emitting compound B1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Compound B1 fails to include at least one of the claimed chemical moieties, as required by claims 21 and 23-24. However, Adamovich teaches the organic emissive layer comprises a host and teaches the organic emissive layer may comprise additional dopants (abstract; ¶ [0084] and [0094]).
Kim teaches an organic light-emitting device including an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant, wherein the host is an exciplex host or a delayed fluorescent organic compound, and the dopant includes both a phosphorescent dopant and a fluorescent dopant (abstract and ¶ [0023]). Such a device is economical, and has high external quantum efficiency, high efficiency at a high luminance, and improved roll-off characteristic (¶ [0003] and [0023]). Kim teaches examples of the fluorescent dopant including TTPA, among others (¶ [0020]).
Therefore, as compound B1 is already a phosphorescent dopant (see Adamovich, abstract and ¶ [0147]), 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 a host that is an exciplex host or a delayed fluorescent organic compound and to further include a fluorescent dopant in the organic emissive layer of the modified Model Device 1, as taught by Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device that is economical, and has high external quantum efficiency, high efficiency at a high luminance, and improved roll-off characteristic, as taught by Kim.
In particular, 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 TTPA as the fluorescent dopant, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable fluorescent dopants taught by Kim, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a fluorescent compound useful in the device of Adamovich in view of Li and Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising fluorescent dopants 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).
TTPA reads on the claimed first emissive dopant. As evidenced by Ossila, TTPA has the structure below.
TTPA:
PNG
media_image4.png
144
169
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, TTPA reads on the chemical moiety
PNG
media_image5.png
75
83
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(claim 21); the anthracene group
PNG
media_image6.png
51
120
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(claim 23); and the group
PNG
media_image7.png
155
225
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(claim 24).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2015/0295197 A1) in view of Li (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So (US 2014/0077172 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Adamovich in view of Li teach the modified Model Device 1 including the organic emissive layer comprising the emitting compound B1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
The organic emissive layer fails to include an emissive dopant that is an acceptor and fails to use the emitting compound B1 as a sensitizer. However, Adamovich does teach additional dopants may be present (¶ [0084] and [0094]).
So teaches a device that includes a first acceptor material and a second sensitizer material as co-dopants of an emissive region (abstract; ¶ [0043]). The first material has an energy gap of not more than about 100 meV between the first excited singlet state and the first excited triplet state, and is an organic compound that exhibits E-type (thermally activated) delayed fluorescence (abstract and ¶ [0016]). The second material is a phosphorescent-capable material that acts as a sensitizer to the first material (abstract). Such a device allows for reduced degradation and sensitization up to and including 100% (abstract; ¶ [0035] and [0038]-[0039]).
Therefore, as compound B1 is a phosphorescent-capable material, 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 provide in the organic emissive layer an E-type delayed fluorescence dopant material having an energy gap of not more than about 100 meV between the first excited singlet state and the first excited triplet state, and to use the compound B1 as sensitizer, based on the teaching of So. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device that obtains reduced degradation and sensitization up to and including 100%, as taught by So.
The E-type delayed fluorescence dopant material is an acceptor material and reads on the claimed first emissive dopant.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamovich (US 2015/0295197 A1) in view of Li (US 2002/0076576 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 2003/0042848 A1).
Regarding claim 47, Adamovich in view of Li teach the modified Model Device 1 including the deuterated compound H1 in the electron blocking layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
The modified Model Device 1 fails to include a first pixel and a second pixel, wherein each pixel comprises an organic light-emitting device having the structure of Adamovich’s device, and wherein the dopants of each organic light-emitting device are different.
Park teaches an organic electroluminescent display device comprising a first sub-pixel area, a second sub-pixel area, and a third sub-pixel area, as shown in Fig. 7, wherein the pixel regions are deposited on a large area substrate (¶ [0007] and [0042]-[0044]).
Fig. 7:
PNG
media_image8.png
486
1085
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Where the regions labeled as “Rp”, “Gp”, and “Bp” in the organic electroluminescent display device of Park, as shown above, are being equated with a red light-emitting diode, green light-emitting diode, and blue light-emitting diode, respectively.
Each sub-pixel region comprises a substrate (element 300), a first electrodes (element 312), an organic layer (element 320), and a second electrode (element 324). As shown in the figure above, all of the organic layers except for the light-emitting layer are common amongst the three sub-pixels. Such a device provides for a full color organic electroluminescent display and provides a device with low power consumption (¶ [0012]-[0016]).
Therefore, it the time the invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to modify the OLED of Adamovich in view of Li to be used to produce a full color display device using the sub-pixel region structure of Park—including the layers except for the organic emissive layer being common amongst the pixels, and the different light emitting materials being used in the blue and red light emitting sub-pixel regions—based on the teaching of Park. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the organic layer structure of Adamovich and the pixel region structure of Park) according to known methods (the production of the organic stack of Adamovich and the production of the display device of Park) to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce a full color organic electroluminescent display device that has low power consumption as taught by Park.
The resultant device would comprise three sub-pixel regions (each of which are being equated with organic light-emitting diodes) comprising the layer stack of Adamovich and Park described above—the layers except for the organic emissive layer being common amongst the sub-pixels—each sub-pixel comprising an organic emissive layer comprising a different light-emitting dopant emitting red, green, or blue light.
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 on 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