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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 20 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejections are each withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made over newly cited Kim et al. WO-2011037429-A2.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 30-33 of the reply dated 07/29/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 30-33 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the Applicant's amendment.
Examiner's response – The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein A11 and A12 are selected from the list of specific groups as recited in claims 1 and 20 and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below over newly cited Kim et al. WO-2011037429-A2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, the claims each recite a list of groups that A11 and A12 may be, which include carbocyclic groups and heterocyclic groups and the claims also recite "provided that when one selected from among A11 and A12 is a C10-C20 heterocyclic group, the other selected from among A11 and A12 is not a pyridine group, a pyrazine group, or a pyrimidine group". The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what groups the variables A11 and A12 may be. For example, can A11 and A12 be a C10-C20 heterocyclic group other than those listed previously in the claim? Or does this proviso refer only to C10-C20 heterocyclic groups listed in the prior definition of A11 and A12?
For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted such that the phrase ""provided that when one selected from among A11 and A12 is a C10-C20 heterocyclic group," refers to C10-C20 heterocyclic groups listed in the definition of A11 and A12 previously only and A11 and A12 may not be any C10-C20 heterocyclic group.
Claims 2-19 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite 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 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 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:
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, 3-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. WO-2011037429-A2 (hereinafter "Kim-WO, and see English language machine translation referred to wherein as "Kim-MT") in view of Oka et al. WO-2014171541-A1, see US-20160056388-A1 for English language equivalent (hereinafter "Oka") and Kamalasanan et al. US-20130015431-A1 (hereinafter "Kamalasanan").
Regarding claims 1, 3-14, 16-17, and 20, Kim teaches an organic electric device comprising an organic material layer disposed between a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein at least one of the organic material layer of the organic electric field comprises a compound of one of Formula 1 to 15 (Kim-MT, page 7 of 18, lines 17-19) wherein the compound is in a light emitting layer (Kim-MT, page 7 of 18, lines 29-30), as a host (Kim-MT, page 2 of 18, lines 33-34, page 8 of 18, line 23). Kim teaches wherein the device comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer (Kim-MT, page 8 of 18, lines 7-9). Kim teaches the compound of one of Formula 1 to 15 used in the organic electric device results in high efficiency, low voltage, high brightness, stability increase and long life (page 3 of 18, lines 4-6). Kim teaches an example device comprising compound A-12 as the host of one of Formula 1 to 15 and Ir(ppy)3 as the phosphorescent dopant in the light emitting layer, 4,4-bis [ N- (1-naphthyl) -N -phenylamino] biphenyl (NPD) in the hole transport layer, and the electron injection layer formed of LiF (Kim-MT, page 12 of 18, lines 12-29 and Kim-WO Table 1). Ir(ppy)3 is an organometallic complex represented by claimed Formula 401. LiF is an alkaline metal compound.
The structure of compound A-12 can be found in paragraph [54] (Kim-WO):
PNG
media_image1.png
233
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The compound A-12 of Kim is a first compound represented by the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
Ar11 is a group represented by Formula 1-1;
m11 is 1;
A81 and A82 are not required to be present;
X11 is N[(L13)a13-R13];
X12 is a single bond;
X81 is not required to be present;
X82 is not required to be present;
A11 is a benzene group and A12 is a phenanthrene group;
L11 to L-16 and L81 to L84 are not required to be present;
a11 to a12 are not required to be present, a13 is 0, and a16 and a81 to a84 are not required to be present;
R11 to R12 are not required to be present, R13 is a substituted C5 heteroaryl group (a pyridinyl group substituted with two phenyl groups), and R14 to R16- are not required to be present;
n11 and n12 are each 0;
R81 to R84 are not required to be present;
R101 and R102 are each hydrogen, and R85 and R86 are not required to be present; and
b101 is 1 to 4 and b102 is 1 to 6, and b85 and b86 are not required to be present.
Kim does not specifically disclose a device as described above wherein the electron transport region comprises a compound represented by the claimed Formula 2.
Oka teaches cyclic azine compounds of a general formula (1), a general formula (2), and a general formula (2') (¶ [0021]) and that an organic electroluminescent device having an electron transport layer containing the cyclic azine compound is excellent in luminous efficiency characteristics and drive voltage characteristics in addition to long service life (¶ [0012], ¶ [0019], ¶ [0506]). Oka teaches specific examples of the cyclic azine compound including compound E-1
PNG
media_image2.png
402
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0108]), page 99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the instant claims to modify the device of Kim to include an electron transporting layer of Oka in the electron transport region of the device of Kim, based on the teaching of Oka. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an organic electroluminescent device which is excellent in luminous efficiency characteristics and drive voltage characteristics in addition to long service life, as taught by Oka.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select cyclic azine compound E-1, because it would have been choosing from the list of specifically exemplified compounds of Oka, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a cyclic azine compound useful as in the electron transport layer and possessing the benefits of excellent in luminous efficiency characteristics and drive voltage characteristics, as taught by Oka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the compound of Oka having the benefits as described above taught by Oka in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success of a device excellent in luminous efficiency characteristics and drive voltage characteristics in addition to long service life, as taught by Oka. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The compound E-1 of Oka in the electron transport layer is a second compound represented by the claimed Formula 2 wherein:
A21 is a C6 arene group (a benzene group),
X21 is N, X22 is C(R22), X23 is N, X24 is C(R24), and X25 is N,
R21 is not required to be present, R22 is a C6 aryl group (a phenyl group), R23 is not required to be present, R24 are each a C6 aryl group (a phenyl group), R25 is not required to be present, and in one instance R26 is a group represented by Formula 9-2 and in the other instance R26 is a substituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group),
b26 is 2,
L91 is not required to be present,
L92 is a C6 arylene group (a phenylene group) and L93 is not required to be present,
a91 is not required to be present,
a92 is 1, and a93 is not required to be present,
R91 and R93 are not required to be present,
R92 is a pyrimidinyl group substituted with a C1 alkyl group (methyl), and
Q1 to Q3 are not required to be present.
The compound E-1 of Oka in the electron transport layer is a second compound represented by the claimed Formula 2-1 wherein:
X21 is N, X22 is C(R22), X23 is N, X24 is C(R24), and X25 is N,
R21 is not required to be present, R22 is a C6 aryl group (a phenyl group), R23 is not required to be present, R24 is a C6 aryl group (a phenyl group), R25 is not required to be present, R26a is not required to be present, R26b is a group represented by Formula 9-2, R26c is not required to be present, R26d is a substituted C6 aryl group (a phenyl group), and R26e is not required to be present, and
Q1 to Q3 are not required to be present.
Kim in view of Oka does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the electron transport layer that comprises cyclic azine compound E-1 further comprises at least one selected from an alkaline metal complex and an alkaline earth-metal complex. However, Oka teaches the electron transport layer may also contain other electron-transporting materials in addition to the cyclic azine compound including alkali metal complexes, alkaline earth metal complexes (¶ [0262]).
Kamalasanan teaches alkaline metal quinolate compounds of general formula 1 comprising lithium, sodium or potassium (¶ [0001]), and that the doping of these materials in electron transport materials improves their electron mobility (¶ [0004]). Kamalasanan teaches the alkaline metal quinolate compound of general formula 1 used as an n-dopant in the electron transport layer of an organic light emitting device (¶ [0043]). Kamalasanan teaches efficient charge balance in organic light emitting devices can be achieved with the alkaline metal quinolates in the electron transport layer (¶ [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the instant claims to further modify the device of Kim in view of Oka by doping the electron transport layer that comprises cyclic azine compound E-1 with the alkaline metal quinolate complex of general formula 1 of Kamalasanan, based on the teaching of Kamalasanan. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve electron mobility and achieve efficient charge balance, as taught by Kamalasanan.
Therefore, the modified device of Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan meets claims 1, 3-14, 16-17, and 20.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. WO-2011037429-A2 (hereinafter "Kim-WO, and see English language machine translation referred to wherein as "Kim-MT") in view of Oka et al. WO-2014171541-A1, see US-20160056388-A1 for English language equivalent ("Oka") and Kamalasanan et al. US-20130015431-A1 ("Kamalasanan") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. US-20040100190-A1 (hereinafter “Kim-190”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the layer between the light-emitting layer and the electron transport layer of Oka comprises either the claimed first compound represented by Formula 1 or the claimed second compound represented by Formula 2.
Kim-190 teaches an OLED having an emission layer comprising a host and a dopant and a non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer adjacent to the emission layer comprising only the host (see Abstract, ¶ [0001]). Kim-190 teaches that such an arrangement improves luminescence efficiency and simplifies the manufacturing process since an additional hole blocking material is not required (see Abstract, ¶ [0022]–[0023], ¶ [0043], and ¶ [0045]–[0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan to further include a non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer adjacent to the emission layer on the cathode side comprising the host compound of Kim, based on the teaching of Kim-190. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain improved luminescence efficiency with a simplified manufacturing process, as taught by Kim-190.
The non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer of Kim-190 is between the cathode and the light-emitting layer and necessarily transport electrons from the cathode into the light-emitting layer. Therefore, the non-doping layer as a hole blocking layer is in the electron transport region and corresponds to the claimed first layer comprising the compound of Formula 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. WO-2011037429-A2 (hereinafter "Kim-WO, and see English language machine translation referred to wherein as "Kim-MT") in view of Oka et al. WO-2014171541-A1, see US-20160056388-A1 for English language equivalent ("Oka") and Kamalasanan et al. US-20130015431-A1 ("Kamalasanan") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. US-20060103298-A1 (hereafter "Lee").
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the emission layer comprises a first host and a second host, the first host is the first compound, and the first host is different from the second host. In the modified devices discussed above the host compound in the light-emitting layer is the compound of Kim.
Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent device which can prevent device characteristics from being degraded due to crystallization which may occur during a device operation (¶ [0013]) wherein the device comprising at least one light-emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one dopant and at least two host materials include a first host material and a second host material (¶ [0015]). Lee teaches that by forming the light emitting layer using the mixture of two or more host materials, crystallization which may occur during a manufacturing process or device operation can be prevented, thereby reducing inferiority resulting from the device characteristic degradation and device damage (¶ [0076]).
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 form the light emitting layer further comprising a second host compound, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce crystallization and thereby reduce inferiority resulting from the device characteristic degradation and device damage, as taught by Lee.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. WO-2011037429-A2 (hereinafter "Kim-WO, and see English language machine translation referred to wherein as "Kim-MT") in view of Oka et al. WO-2014171541-A1, see US-20160056388-A1 for English language equivalent ("Oka") and Kamalasanan et al. US-20130015431-A1 ("Kamalasanan") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jang et al. US-20100289008-A1 ("Jang").
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the hole transport region between the emission layer and the anode comprises a p-dopant and the p-dopant has a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of 3.5 eV or less. However, Kim teaches the hole transport layer may be formed of NPB (Kim-MT, page 9 of 18, lines 17-21).
Jang teaches an organic light emitting device having high efficiency can be obtained by forming a hole injecting and/or transporting layer of an organic light emitting device doping a material with a LUMO energy level of -4 eV or less in a material with a HOMO energy level of -4 eV or less (¶ [0009],¶ [0011]). Jang teaches specific examples of the material with a LUMO energy level of -4 eV or less include 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4TCNQ) and hexaazatriphenylene-hexacarbonitrile (¶ [0036]), which comprise a cyano group, and specific examples of the material with a HOMO energy level of -4 eV or less include NPB (¶ [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan by forming the hole transport layer of NPB, which is a HOMO energy level of -4 eV or less, and doping the NPB with a material with a LUMO energy level of -4 eV or less, based on the teaching of Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high efficiency, as taught by Jang.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4TCNQ) or hexaazatriphenylene-hexacarbonitrile as the material with a LUMO energy level of -4 eV or less, because it would have been choosing from the list of materials specifically disclosed by Jang, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in a hole transport layer of an organic light emitting device and possessing the benefit of high efficiency as taught by Jang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the material with a LUMO energy level of -4 eV or less having the benefit of high efficiency as taught by Jang in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success of a device with high efficiency, as taught by Jang. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The instant specification teaches the p-dopant may include 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4TCNQ) and hexaazatriphenylene-hexacarbonitrile (see ¶ [00381] and ¶ [00383]). Jang teaches that the LUMO of these compounds is -4 eV or less and this is lower than -3.5 eV. Therefore the Office is equating 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4TCNQ) and hexaazatriphenylene-hexacarbonitrile with the claimed p-dopant because the instant specification teaches the p-dopant may be 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4TCNQ) and hexaazatriphenylene-hexacarbonitrile and because the each meet the instant claim limitations of comprising a cyano group and having a LUMO lower than -3.5 eV and it is presumed that compounds that meet the instant claim limitations function as the claimed p-dopant.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overKim et al. WO-2011037429-A2 (hereinafter "Kim-WO, and see English language machine translation referred to wherein as "Kim-MT") in view of Oka et al. WO-2014171541-A1, see US-20160056388-A1 for English language equivalent ("Oka") and Kamalasanan et al. US-20130015431-A1 ("Kamalasanan") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bamfield, Peter Hutchings, Michael G. (2010). Chromic Phenomena - Technological Applications of Colour Chemistry (2nd Edition) - 3.9.10 Applications of OLEDs in Displays. Royal Society of Chemistry ("Bamfield").
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the phosphorescent-emitting layer is a first-color light emission layer, the organic layer further comprises i) at least one second-color light emission layer, wherein the first-color light and the second-color light are identical to or different from each other, or ii) at least one second-color light emission layer and at least one third-color light emission layer, wherein the first-color light, the second-color light, and third-color light are identical to or different from one another, and when the organic light-emitting device operates, mixed light comprising the first-color light and the second-color light is emitted, or mixed light comprising the first-color light, the second-color light, and the third-color light is emitted.
Bamfield teaches that white light may be obtained by a multilayer device wherein two or more emitter layers are on top of each other such that when activated, they produce white light (page 351, Section 3.9.10.1, first paragraph) and exemplifies a blue/red/green multilayer structure in Fig. 3.55(a) (page 352). Bamfield teaches white OLEDs advantageously emit diffuse light over an area and are useful lighting spaces and back lighting display panels (page 350, Section 3.9.10 first paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the instant claims to further modify the device of Kim in view of Oka and Kamalasanan to provide the emitting layer as a laminate of a plurality of layers of blue, red, and green such that when activated, they produce mixed light comprising the three colors, i.e., white light, based on the teaching of Bamfield. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce diffuse white light useful in lighting spaces and back lighting display panels, as taught by Bamfield.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights