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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's submission dated 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1, 4-5, 7, and 21 is amended, claim 22 are cancelled, and claim 23 is new due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-19, 21, and 23 are pending.
The objections and rejections of claim 22 are moot because the claim is cancelled.
The objections to claims 4-5, 7, and 21 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The objections are withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment. The rejections are each withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly cited Hatakeyama et al. US-20190181350-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 2-5 of the reply dated 10/28/2025 with respect to the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 2-4 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment. Specifically, the applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose or render obvious the claimed device wherein the first dopant is Dopant 3-5.
Examiner's response – The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein the first dopant is Dopant 3-5, and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of teachings of Hatakeyama et al. US-20190181350-A1.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 4 that the organic light emitting devices comprising the Dopant 3-5 have significantly advantageous lifespan.
Examiner's response – In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., significantly advantageous lifetime) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Additionally, if the applicant is making an allegation of unexpected results, it is noted that comparison has not been made to the closest prior art, because applicant does not point to any comparison and it is unclear from Table A what comparison is being made. The applicants have the burden of explaining the proffered data.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 5 of the reply that the claims dependent from independent claim 1, including new claim 23, are non-obvious for at least the same reasons as above.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to the rejection of the dependent claims and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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, 4-5, 7, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") in view of Hatakeyama et al. US-20190181350-A1 (hereinafter "Hatakeyama"), Huh et al. WO-2016052798-A1 (hereinafter "Huh-WO" and see machine translation referred to herein as "Huh-MT"), and Park et al. WO-2013191429-A1 (hereinafter "Park-WO" and see machine translation referred to herein as ("Park-MT").
Regarding claim 1, 4-5, 7, 21, and 23, Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent element including a first electrode, a second electrode, and at least one organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes a light-emitting layer, and wherein the light-emitting layer includes a compound represented by a Formula 1 and a compound represented by a Formula 2 (¶ [0012]-[0014]). Kim teaches specific examples of the compound represented by Formula 2 including compound 2-55 (¶ [0094], page 54) and compound 2-61 (¶ [0094], page 55) and teaches specific examples of the device including Example 11 wherein the compound of Formula 2 is a host compound 2-61
PNG
media_image1.png
251
147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 55) (TABLE 11, described in ¶ [0286]-[0289]), and wherein the first electrode (an anode) is formed on a substrate (¶ [0286]). Kim teaches the device exhibits improved efficiency, color characteristics, and lifetime (¶ [0052]).
The compound 2-55 and 2-61 are a compound of the claimed Formula 1 and corresponds to the claimed Host 1 and Host 2, respectively.
Kim does not exemplify a compound of Formula 1 that corresponds to Dopant 3-5.
Hatakeyama teaches a deuterium-substituted polycyclic aromatic compound represented by a general formula (1) (¶ [0011]) for use in as a dopant in the light emitting layer of an organic electroluminescent device (¶ [0068 and [0070]), with an anthracene-based host (¶ [0072]). Hatakeyama teaches specific examples of the compound of formula (1) include compound (1-107)
PNG
media_image2.png
364
389
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0060], page 4), which falls within the scope of Kim's Formula 1. Hatakeyama teaches that by using the deuterium-substituted polycyclic aromatic compound, an excellent organic device such as an organic EL element can be provided (¶ [0079]) and improved luminous efficiency by an isotope effect due to a change in bonding form (¶ [0081]) and teaches that introduction of a deuterium atom and can improve element lifetime by a reaction kinetic isotope effect (¶ [0081]).
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 dopant compound represented by Formula 1 in the device of Kim out of the compound of Hatakeyama, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain an excellent organic EL element with improved luminous efficiency and improved element lifetime, as taught by Hatakeyama.
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 select the compound of Formula (1-107) of Hatakeyama, because it would have been choosing from the list of compounds of formula (1) specifically disclosed by Hatakeyama, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Kim in view of Hatakeyama and possessing the benefits of improved luminous efficiency and improved element lifetime, as taught by Hatakeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the compound of formula (1) Hatakeyama having the benefits taught by Hatakeyama in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The compound (1-107) of Kim is identical to the claimed Dopant 3-5.
Kim in view of Hatakeyama does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising an electron blocking layer between the first electrode and the light emitting layer including an electron blocking material represented by claimed Formula 5.
Huh teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, an emission layer between them, and further comprising an electron blocking layer between the anode and the emission layer including a compound represented by a Formula 2 (Huh-MT page 1, line 40 to page 2 line 5; Huh-MT, page 4, lines 10-11). Huh teaches that when the electron blocking layer includes the compound represented by Formula 2, the generated excitons are confined in the light emitting layer to prevent light leakage and therefore an organic light emitting device having excellent light emission efficiency may be realized (Huh-MT, lines 26-28). Huh teaches exemplary compounds of the Formula 2 including compound 2-39
PNG
media_image3.png
292
203
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Huh-MT, page 33), which corresponds to claimed compound E3.
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 include an electron blocking layer comprising a compound of Formula 2 of Huh between the light emitting layer and the first electrode in the device of Kim in view of Hatakeyama, based on the teaching of Huh. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain excellent light emission efficiency, as taught by Huh.
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 select the compound of Formula 2 of Huh as compound 2-39, because it would have been choosing from the list of compounds of Formula 2 specifically disclosed by Huh, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the electron blocking layer of the device of Kim in view of Hatakeyama and Huh and possessing the benefit excellent light emission efficiency, as taught by Huh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the compound of Formula 2 of Huh having the benefits taught by Huh in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Kim in view of Hatakeyama and Huh does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising a hole blocking layer between the second electrode and the light emitting layer including one selected from a hole blocking material represented by Formula 7 and a hole blocking material represented by Formula 10.
Park teaches a light-emitting device comprising one or more organic layers between a first electrode and a second electrode wherein the one or more organic layers comprise a light emitting layer, and one or more of the organic layers include a compound of a Formula 1 (Park-MT, page 13, lines 31 to 34). Park teaches that the one or more organic layers comprising a hole blocking layer (Park-MT, page 14 of 27, lines 1-2). Park teaches specific examples of the compound of Formula 1 including compound 1-19 and 1-20 (Park-WO, page 54), which correspond to claimed compounds H15 and H16. Park teaches the device comprising the compound exhibits excellent efficiency, driving voltage, lifespan, improved light efficiency, and improved lifetime characteristic (Park-MT, page 4 of 27, lines 12-21).
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 include a hole blocking layer comprising a compound of Formula 1 of Park in the device of Kim in view of Hatakeyama and Huh, based on the teaching of Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain excellent efficiency, driving voltage, lifespan, improved light efficiency, and improved lifetime characteristic, as taught by Park.
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 select the compound of Formula 1 of Park as compound 1-19 or 1-20, because it would have been choosing from the list of compounds of Formula 1 specifically disclosed by Park, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful in the hole blocking layer of the device of Kim in view of Hatakeyama and Huh and possessing the benefits of excellent efficiency, driving voltage, lifespan, improved light efficiency, and improved lifetime characteristic, as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the compound of Formula 1 of Park having the benefits taught by Park in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified device of Kim in view of Hatakeyama, Huh, and Park meets claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 21.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20210053998-A1 (hereinafter "Kim") in view of Hatakeyama et al. US-20190181350-A1 (hereinafter "Hatakeyama"), Huh et al. WO-2016052798-A1 (hereinafter "Huh-WO" and see machine translation referred to herein as "Huh-MT"), and Park et al. WO-2013191429-A1 (hereinafter "Park-WO" and see machine translation referred to herein as ("Park-MT") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yoon US-2019305227-A1 (hereinafter "Yoon").
Regarding claims 10-19, Kim in view of Hatakeyama, Huh, and Park teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Hatakeyama, Huh, and Park does not specifically teach a device wherein: the organic light emitting diode further includes: a second emitting material layer including a second host of an anthracene derivative and a second dopant of a boron derivative emitting a blue light and positioned between the first emitting material layer and the second electrode; and a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting material layers; an anthracene core of the second host is deuterated; the organic light emitting diode further includes: a third emitting material layer emitting a yellow-green light and positioned between the first charge generation layer and the second emitting material layer; and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers; a red pixel, a green pixel and a blue pixel are defined on the substrate, and the organic light emitting diode corresponds to each of the red, green and blue pixels, and wherein the organic light emitting device further includes: a color filter layer disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode or on the organic light emitting diode and corresponding to the red, green and blue pixels; the organic light emitting diode further includes: a third emitting material layer emitting a red light and a green light and positioned between the first charge generation layer and the second emitting material layer; and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers; and the third emitting material layer further includes a third layer emitting a green light.
However, Yoon teaches that an organic electroluminescent device can have a structure wherein the organic electroluminescent device wherein the organic light-emitting layer may include a vertical stack of a first light emission sub-stack ( ST1 ), a second light emission sub-stack ( ST2 ), a third light emission sub-stack ( ST3 ), a first charge-generating layer ( CGL1 ), and a second charge generating layer ( CGL2 ) in between the sub-stacks (¶ [0082], Fig. 2), wherein the light emitting layers may render any of blue, red, green, or yellow (¶ [0055]-[0056]). Additionally, Yoon teaches an organic light emission display device including a color filter that absorbs light generated from the organic electroluminescent device wherein the color filter patterns that absorb the red, green, and blue light may be disposed separately on a pixel basis, wherein each of these color filter patterns may overlap with a corresponding organic light - emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device that emits light having a corresponding wave length and by adopting the color filter, and thereby allow the organic light emission display device to render a full color range (¶ [0014]).
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 incorporate these known features and thereby arrive at the claimed device taught as suitable by Yoon, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of a functional organic light emitting diode. See MPEP § 2143.I.(A).
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.
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 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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786