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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-14 and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 14 and 19 have been amended.
The amendment of claim 19 overcomes the rejections of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment of claim 19 overcomes:
the rejection of claim 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 17 of US Patent no. 12,396,362 (previously Application no. 17/502,766, hereafter ‘362 Patent) in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) and
the provisional rejection of claim 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 16/987,332 (reference application, hereafter ‘332 Application) in view of Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 24 of the reply filed 06/10/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and 112(b) set forth in the Office Action of 03/10/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections are moot in view of the amendments to claim 19.
The rejections refer to the Compound 3-16 of the previous claim 19. The compound has been deleted in the amendment such that the rejections are withdrawn.
However, because the claim 19 has no additional limitation on the third compound, the scope of the claim 19 has been broadened. Stengel in view of Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama can read on all the limitations of the amended claim 19. A new ground of rejection is applied.
Stengel in view of Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama teaches the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama (see section 96 of the last Office Action) comprising a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and DABNA-2.
The Compounds D1 of Ihn and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama have identical structures as Applicant’s Compounds 1-20 and 4-8 of claim 19, respectively. The only difference between the device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama and the claimed device is the second compound.
The second host Compound A6 of Ihn has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 2-15 of claim 19. However, Ihn does teach that the second host compound can be A5 ([0187]) which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound 2-15.
PNG
media_image1.png
185
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama by substituting the second host Compound A6 of Ihn with Compound A5 of Ihn, as taught by Ihn.
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama (2) comprising a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A5 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and DABNA-2.
A new ground of rejection is applied to the amended claim 19. The amendment necessitates new ground of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 24-26 of the reply filed 06/10/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1, hereafter Stengel) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1, Ihn), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1, hereafter Ji), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, Seo), the rejections of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel in view of Ihn, Ji, and Seo as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama), the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel in view of Ihn, Ji, and Seo as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1), the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel in view of Ihn, Ji, and Seo as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012) set forth in the Office Action of 03/10/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the alkyl group of the cited Compound 24 of Ji is not a carbocyclic group or heterocyclic group.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
There are two reasons why the Compound 24 of Ji can read on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 3-2.
First, the claims do not require any further limitation on the substituent of the “substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl group” at the positions corresponding to R32 and R34 of the Formula 3-2 of the instant claims. The claims should be interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification. Because there is no limitation which substituent can be the substituent of the substituted C1-C60 alkyl group at the positions R32 and R34, any substituent including a structure formed by connection of two substituents of R32 and R34 can read all the limitations of R32 and R34 of Formula 3-2.
It should be noted that this interpretation is correct regardless of the limitation that Applicant relied on (i.e. “R31 to R38 are optionally linked to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted C5-C60 carbocyclic group or a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 heterocyclic group, …”).
PNG
media_image2.png
348
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For instance, Compound 24 of Ji has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 3-2, wherein R32 is a substituted C1 alkyl, wherein the substituent of the substituted C1 alkyl is a substituted alkyl; R34 is a substituted C1 alkyl, wherein the substituent of the substituted C1 alkyl is a substituted alkyl; and the two substituted alkyl groups happen to be connected. Thus, the Compound 24 of Ji reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 3-2.
Second, the Compound 24 of Ji reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 3-2 because the metallacyclic ring formed by the linked alkyl groups at the positions corresponding to R32 and R34 of Formula 3-2 reads on all the limitations of a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 heterocyclic group. None of the instant claims recites which heteroatom is required to be the heteroatom of the “substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 heterocyclic group”. The claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonable manner (BRI) in light of specification. The instant specification states “The term “C1-C60 heterocyclic group” as used herein refers to a group having a structure corresponding to the C5-C60 carbocyclic group, except that as a ring-forming atom, at least one heteroatom selected from N, O, Si, P, and S is used in addition to carbon (the number of carbon atoms may be in a range of 1 to 60)” ([0534]). Thus, the metallacyclic ring formed by the Pt, A34, R34, R32, and A31 in the Compound 24 of Ji reads on all the limitations of the substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 heterocyclic group.
That is, the Compound 24 of Ji reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 3-2, wherein R32 and R34 are each a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C60 alkyl group, wherein R32 and R34 are linked to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted C9 heterocyclic group (i.e. a Pt-containing metallacyclic ring), wherein at least one heteroatom (i.e. N) is used in addition to carbon.
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments see page 27 of the reply filed 06/10/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 17 of Patent ‘362/Seo set forth in the Office Action of 03/10/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims should be withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejection refers to the Organic light emitting device of ‘362 Patent as modified by Seo (section 137 of the previous Office Action) comprising a first electrode, a first region, an auxiliary layer including a first layer and a second layer each including an organic compound, an emission layer (a first Compound 1-20, a second Compound 2-15, a third Compound 3-16, and a fourth Compound 4-1), an intermediate layer (“mixed layer”) comprising at least the first, the second, and the fourth compounds, a second region, a second electrode.
The third Compound 3-16 of ‘362 Patent (see section 126 of the previous Office Action) does not read on the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 3-2 of the instant claim 1, because the compound forms a C6 carbocyclic group (i.e. benzene) by linking the substituents at the positions corresponding to the R33 and R34 of Formula 3-2. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 27 of the reply filed 06/10/2026 regarding the provisional rejection of claim 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of ‘332 Application/Stengel set forth in the Office Action of 03/10/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims should be withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejection refers to the Organic light emitting device of ‘332 Application as modified by Stengel (2) (section 160 of the last Office Action) comprising a first electrode, a first region (hole transport layer), a first emission layer (a first host, a second host, a first dopant), an intermediate layer (a first host or a second host), a second emission layer (a first host, a second host, and a second dopant), a first layer (electron transport layer comprising ETM:LiQ), a second layer (electron injection layer comprising LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein the first host is Compound 1-3, the second host is Compound 2-16, the first dopant is Compound 3-16 used as a sensitizer, the second dopant is Compound 4-1 as a fluorescent emitter. The first emission layer, an intermediate layer, and the second emission layer is equated with the emission region of the instant claims. The compounds 1-3, 2-16, 3-16, 4-1, ETM, and LiQ are each equated with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth compound of the instant claims, respectively.
The third Compound 3-16 of ‘332 Application (see section 146 of the previous Office Action) does not read on the limitations of Applicant’s Formula 3-2 of the instant claim 1, because the compound forms a C6 carbocyclic group (i.e. benzene) by linking the substituents at the positions corresponding to the R33 and R34 of Formula 3-2. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5, 7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1, hereafter Stengel) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1, hereafter Ihn), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1, hereafter Ji), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 10-14, Stengel discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a sensitizer and a fluorescent emitter ([0001], [0005]).
Stengel teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode ([0118]).
Stengel teaches ETM:LiQ as the electron transport layer material and LiQ as the electron injection layer material ([0177], Table 4).
Stengel does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising ETM:LIQ as the electron transport layer material, and LiQ as the electron injection layer material; however, Stengel does teach that ETM:LiQ used as the electron transport layer material, and LiQ used as the electron injection layer material ([0177], Table 4).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting device of Stengel by incorporating ETM:LiQ as the electron transport layer material, and LiQ as the electron injection layer material, as taught by Stengel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of the electron transport layer materials, and the electron injection layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Each selection of ETM:LiQ as the electron transport layer material, and LiQ as the electron injection layer material would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Stengel comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (a sensitizer and a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer (ETM:LiQ), an electron injection layer (LiQ), and a second electrode (anode).
Stengel does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising two hosts in the emission layer; however, Stengel teaches that carbazole derivatives as the host material of the emission layer ([0109]).
Ihn discloses a composition comprising a donor compound and an acceptor compound, wherein the donor and acceptor compounds form an exciplex and used for the organic layer of an organic light emitting device ([0008]- [0012], [0024]- [0027]). Ihn teaches that the composition is used as the host of an organic light emitting device ([0330], Table 6).
Ihn exemplifies Compound D1 as a donor compound and Compound A5 is an acceptor compound ([0187]).
PNG
media_image3.png
277
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ihn teaches the composition provides a low voltage, high emission efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime ([0008]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Stengel by incorporating a donor Compound D1 of Ihn and an acceptor Compound A6 of Ihn into the emission layer of the device, as taught by Stengel and Ihn.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the organic light emitting device with a low voltage, high emission efficiency, high luminance, and long lifetime based on the teaching of Ihn.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer (ETM:LiQ), an electron injection layer (LiQ), and a second electrode (anode).
The Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn does not contain a sensitizer having structure represented by Applicant’s Formula 3-2; however, Stengel does teach that a Pt-based phosphorescent compound can be used as the sensitizer in the device of Stengel ([0039]-[0040], [0045]).
Ji discloses a Pt-based phosphorescent compound (Formula 1 in [0016]) used for an organic light emitting device ([0015]). Ji exemplifies Compound 24 ([0058]). The Compound 24 of Ji has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 3-2 of the instant claims.
PNG
media_image4.png
236
413
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ji teaches that the compound provides high emission quantum yield and superior photochemical and electrochemical stability ([0015]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn by incorporating Compound 24 of Ji as the sensitizer, as taught by Stengel and Ji.
The motivation of doing so would be to provide improved performance and sublimation, high stability, high efficiency, and long lifetime, based on the teaching of Ji.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of known Pt-based phosphorescent compounds used for OLEDs would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, and Ji comprising a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode.
The device does not comprise an intermediate layer comprising at least one of the first compound, the second compound, and the fourth compound, as required in the instant claim 1.
Seo teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic electronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; “1st mixed region” and “2nd mixed region” in Fig. 19; [0050]).
Seo teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([0054]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, and Ji by incorporating a first mixed layer between the emission layer and the hole transport layer and a second mixed layer between the emission layer and the electron transport layer, as taught by Seo.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic electronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo comprising a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
The compounds D1 of Ihn, A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, a fluorescent dopant, ETM of Stengel, and LiQ are each equated with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth compound of the instant claims, respectively.
The Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that: 1) the third compound (Compound 24 of Ji) satisfies the Equation 1 (ΔEST(C3) ≤ about 0.3 eV in claim 1).
It is reasonable to presume that 1) the third compound (Compound 24 of Ji) satisfies the Equation 1.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the third compound satisfies the Equation 1 (ΔEST(C3) ≤ about 0.3 eV ([0011]). The Compound 24 of Ji has identical structure as the third compound of Formula 3-2 of the instant disclosure ([0026]).
Therefore, 1) the third compound (Compound 24 of Ji) satisfies the Equation 1 (claim 1), meeting all the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, and 10-14.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 9, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
The device does not have particular concentrations of the third and the fourth compounds.
However, Stengel does teach that the concentration of the sensitizer can be preferably 20 to 40% by weight ([0130]) and the concentration of the fluorescent emitter can be preferably 3 to 10% by weight ([0131]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo by incorporating the sensitizer with 20 to 40wt% and the fluorescent emitter with 3 to 10wt% as taught by Stengel.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the concentrations of the sensitizer and the fluorescent emitter would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo (2) wherein the device has identical structure as the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo except that the concentration of the sensitizer is 20 to 40 wt% and the concentration of the fluorescent emitter is 3 to 10 wt%. The ratio of the fluorescent emitter (fourth compound) to the sensitizer (third compound) is 0.075 to 0.5.
Applicant claims that concentration of the fourth compound is about 1/3 or less of concentration of the third compound.
The claimed range about 1/3 is overlapped with the prior art range (0.075 to 0.5).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Claims 8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
The device does not comprise a specific fluorescent dopant having structural formula 501 of the claim 18; however, Stengel does teach any fluorescent compound can be used ([0055], [0068]).
Hatakeyama discloses DABNA-2 used as the fluorescent emitter of an organic light emitting device (Figs. 2 and 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
253
595
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The compound DABNA-2 has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 5(1) of claim 18 and the specific embodiment 4-8 of the instant claim 19.
Hatakeyama teaches that DABNA-2 provides pure blue emission with a narrow FWHM which represents record-setting performance for blue OLED (page 2780, col. 2, last paragraph).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, J, and Seo by incorporating DABNA-2 as the fluorescent emitter as taught by Stengel and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would provide pure blue emission with a narrow FWHM which represents record-setting performance for blue OLED based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of known fluorescent compounds would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and DABNA-2.
The Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that: 2) the absorption spectrum of the fourth compound and a maximum peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the fourth compound is about 35 nm or less (claim 8).
It is reasonable to presume that 2) the absorption spectrum of the fourth compound and a maximum peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the fourth compound is about 35 nm or less (claim 8).
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the absorption spectrum of the fourth compound and a maximum peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the fourth compound is about 35 nm or less ([0018]). The DABNA-2 has identical structure as the fourth compound of Formula 5(1) of the instant disclosure ([0028]) and the specific embodiment Compound 4-8 ([0319]).
Therefore, 2) the absorption spectrum of the fourth compound and a maximum peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the fourth compound is about 35 nm or less (claim 8), meeting all the limitations of claims 8 and 18.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claim 19, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 1 above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and DABNA-2.
The Compound D1 of Ihn and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama have identical structures as Applicant’s Compounds 1-20 and 4-8, respectively. The only difference between the device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama and the claimed device is the second compound. The second host Compound A6 of Ihn has similar structure as Applicant’s Compound 2-15. However, Ihn does teach that the second host compound can be A5 ([0187]) which has identical structure as Applicant’s compound 2-15.
PNG
media_image1.png
185
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama by substituting the second host Compound A6 of Ihn with Compound A5 of Ihn, as taught by Ihn.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified second host compounds (i.e. acceptor compounds) of Ihn in the device of Ihn would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Hatakeyama (2) comprising a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A5 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and DABNA-2 of Hatakeyama as a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and DABNA-2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1, hereafter Liao).
Regarding claim 6, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
The Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo has a single emission layer, which does not read on the limitation of claim 6.
Liao discloses a stacked organic light emitting device emitting white light ([0016]- [0022]).
Liao teaches that the device can be made by stacking three EL units each of which includes a red, green, or blue emitting dopant in the light emitting layer (Fig. 7).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo by stacking EL units between the first and the second electrodes, wherein each EL unit has the same organic layer structure as the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo except that the light emitting dopant of each EL unit is a blue, green, or red dopant, as taught by Stengel and Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, Seo, and Liao comprising a first electrode, a blue EL unit, a green EL unit, a red EL unit, and a second electrode, wherein the blue, green, and red EL units have the organic layer structure of a first region, an intermediate layer, an emission layer comprising a first compound (D1 of Ihn), a second compound (A6 of Ihn), a third compound (Compound 24 of Ji), and a fourth compound (emitter), an intermediate layer, a second region; and the fourth compound of the blue, green, and red EL unit are each a blue, green, and red fluorescent emitter.
In the device, the combined layers of the blue EL unit, a green EL unit, and a red EL unit is equated with an emission region; the blue EL unit is equated with a first emission layer; the red EL unit is equated with a second emission layer; the green EL unit is equated with the intermediate layer. The green EL unit comprises a layer containing a first compound (D1 of Ihn), a second compound (A6 of Ihn), a third compound (Compound 24 of Ji), and a fourth compound (a green emitter); thus, the intermediate layer comprises the first compound.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stengel et al. (US 2022/0045277 A1) in view of Ihn et al. (US 2017/0077421 A1), Ji et al. (US 2018/0212165 A1), and Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-14 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a first region (a hole transport layer), an intermediate layer, an emission layer (Compound D1 of Ihn as a host, Compound A6 of Ihn as a host, Compound 24 of Ji as a sensitizer, and a fluorescent dopant), an intermediate layer, a second region (electron transport layer ETM:LiQ, electron injection layer LiQ), and a second electrode, wherein each intermediate layer comprises Compound D1 of Ihn, the Compound A6 of Ihn, Compound 24 of Ji, and a fluorescent emitter.
Stengel in view of Ihn, Ji, and Seo does not disclose a specific apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo.
Pang discloses an apparatus (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light-emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3) and a thin film transistor (“thin-film transistor”; “B: TFT” in Fig. 3).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo by incorporating it into an apparatus (i.e. OLED display), as taught by Pang.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a flexible display device based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material and method to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the organic light-emitting devices in a flexible display would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The resultant device is an apparatus comprising the Organic light emitting device of Stengel as modified by Ihn, Ji, and Seo, and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the organic light emitting device electrically connected to one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin film transistor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
