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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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).
Election/Restrictions
The submitted amendment excludes previously found species. Pursuant to the protocol of MPEP 803.02, examination of the claims was extended and, as a result, prior art that anticipates and/or obviates other species was found. The prior art search was not extended unnecessarily to cover all nonelected species. Accordingly, prior art rejections pertaining to the found species are presented below with any claims not reading on the species being withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2016/0149139 A1) in view of Mizuki (JP2013-087090A) and Lee (US 2017/0244047 A1). As the cited JP publication is in a non-English language, a machine-translated version of the publication will be cited to.
Regarding Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 12, Xia teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising two electrodes with an organic layer between the two electrodes comprising a hole-transport region and emission layer (Abstract; Figure 1; ¶ 40).
Xia teaches the light emission layer comprises second compound as host and first compound as fluorescent dopant (¶ 76, 82), corresponding with instantly claimed second and third compound respectively. Xia describes embodiments where host compound (second compound) is consistent with the formulae claimed, such as:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Page 66). The above second compound is consistent with Formula 2A where Ar31 = Formula D where a11=a12=0, A11=A12=A13=benzene, X11=X12=O, and R13 = binding site, x1=1, L31 = C14 unsubstituted arylene groups, y1=1, and R31 = C6 unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl).
Xia teaches a range of dopants can be used, inclusive of those taught by Mizuki (incorporated within Xia by reference) (¶ 82). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the dopants of Mizuki to predictably afford workable OLEDs as taught by Xia. Mizuki teaches several compounds consistent with the formulae claimed (¶ 76-126), such as:
PNG
media_image2.png
461
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ 76). The third compound is consistent with Formula 3A where z1=z2=z3=0, Ar41 = Formula D where a11=binding site, a12=a13=0, A11=A12=A13=benzene, and X11=X12=O, Ar42 = benzene, and Ar43 = C16 aryl substituted with -N(Q31)(Q32) where Q31 is C6 aryl and Q32 is C18 heteroaryl. The dopant/host materials cited above are seen to be asymmetrical.
Xia differs from the subject matter claimed in that a hole transport region with auxiliary compound of first compound is not described. Lee teaches organic LEDs comprising hole transport region with hole transport layer and emitting auxiliary layer, the latter being in contact with the emitting layer and reading on a hole auxiliary layer (Abstract; Examples; ¶ 8). The use of the hole transport region yields high efficiency and life-span (¶ 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the hole transport materials of Lee within the organic LEDs of Xia because doing so would provide high efficiency and life-span as taught by Lee. Lee teaches embodiments where the emitting auxiliary layer is the compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
329
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Page 28; Table 5), which is consistent with Formula 1A where L21 through L23 = unsubstituted C6 arylene (phenylene), b1=b2=b3=1, Ar22=A423= Formula 5-3 where e7=7 and Z31=H, and Ar21 = Formula B where a11=0, a12=1, A11=A12=benzene, X11=S, and R12 = binding site.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (US 2016/0149139 A1) in view of Mizuki (JP2013-087090A), Lee (US 2017/0244047 A1), and Cosimbescu (International Journal of Organic Chemistry).
The discussion regarding Xia, Mizuki, and Lee within ¶ 7-10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 11, Mizuki teaches the dopants are blue emitters (Abstract). As evidenced by Cosimbescu, host materials for blue LEDs require triplet energies of greater than 2.75 eV to achieve efficient energy transfer to blue dopant (Page 101, left column). Further, Cosimbescu teaches the surrounding charge-transport layers require higher triplet energies than the emitters to prevent exiton loss and quenching (Page 101, left column). Cosimbescu clearly teaches using host materials and electron transport materials with high triplet energies within blue LEDs provides increased efficiency and quenching prevention (Page 101, left column). Given this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize both host materials and transport materials with minimum triplet energies in excess of 2.0 eV because doing so would procure blue LEDs with increased efficiency and quenching prevention as taught by Cosimbescu.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,930,853. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Specifically, the ‘853 patent claims an organic light emitting device comprising two electrodes and an organic layer between the two electrodes comprising first, second, and third compound (Claim 1). The second and third compounds are in the emission layer and the first compound is within a hole auxiliary layer that may be in contact with emission layer (Claims 1 and 13). The ‘853 patent claims indicates the R groups associated with first through third compound can have benzofuranyl groups (Claim 3). See also the generic formulae of claim 6 and associated definitions within claim 9. The claimed triplet energy property is set forth within claim 19. Therefore, the ‘853 patent claims anticipate the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Lee have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is (571)272-6274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1166. 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.
/STEPHEN E RIETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights