DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All outstanding objections and rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendment filed on 6/15/2026.
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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 6/15/2026. In particular, original Claim 1 has been amended to recite limitations not previously presented. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to recite that phosphorescent emitter is a phosphorescent aggregate and that the phosphorescent emitter layer consists of the phosphorescent emitter. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation the phosphorescent emitter is a phosphorescent aggregate”. However, a fair reading of the Specification as originally filed reveals that the phrase “phosphorescent aggregate” or the word “aggregate” is conspicuous by its absence. While the Specification discloses phosphorescent emitters, phosphorescent dopants, and phosphorescent OLEDs, the Specification as originally filed simply fails to disclose “phosphorescent aggregate” as recited in the present claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al (US 2015/0034927) in view of Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0301629) and Li et al (US 2018/0337349).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano et al discloses the following white organic light emitting device ([0279] and Figure 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
412
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (20) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the hole transporting zone (30) corresponds to the recited hole transport layer. The hole transporting zone (30) is in contact with the anode (20). The cathode (60) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and the electron transporting zone (50) corresponds to the recited electron transport layer. The electron transporting zone (50) is in contact with the cathode (60). Layers 40-44 correspond to the recited emissive layer. These emitting layers (40-44) are found between the hole transporting zone (30) and the electron transporting zone (50). The emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and a fluorescent emitting layer (44), where the phosphorescent emitter (40) layer is disposed between the fluorescent emitting layer (44) and is in contact with the hole transporting zone (30). The fluorescent emitter layer (44) is disposed between the phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and the electron transporting zone (50). The fluorescent emitting layer (44) comprises a fluorescent emitter and a host compound ([0311] and [0314]) and emits blue light ([0279]). The phosphorescent emitting layer (40) emits yellow light ([0279]) and contains a phosphorescent emitter ([0310]).
Given that the reference does not require that compound represented by Formula (1-1) to be necessarily present in the phosphorescent emitter layer (44), the phosphorescent emitting layer (44) can therefore consist of the phosphorescent emitter as recited in the present claims. That is, while the reference prefers that the light emitting layer comprises the host compound represented by Formula (1-1) ([0016]), the reference does not require that the compound is necessarily present in light emitting layer, i.e. the reference merely requires that the compound is necessarily present in the disclosed device, see Paragraph [0173].
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the blue fluorescent emitter harvest singlet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Hatakeyama et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following blue light emitting polycyclic aromatic compound ([0127], [0362], and Page 3 – 1-2621):
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a fluorescent emitter (Abstract, [0127] and [0001]).
The reference does not explicitly disclose that this compound harvests singlet excitons; however, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, that the compound of the reference necessarily harvests singlet excitons. It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. compound harvests singlet excitons would naturally arise and be achieved by a fluorescent layer comprising the fluorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that utilization of this compound in an organic light emitting device results in an excellent organic electroluminescent element (Abstract).
Given that both Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting fluorescent emitter layers, and in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular as taught by fluorescent emitter disclosed by Hatakeyama et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such fluorescent emitters in fluorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, Nakano et al does not disclose that phosphorescent emitter is an excimer emitter and harvests triplet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Li et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following the compounds ([0004], [0038], Page 27, Page 32, Page 117, Page 131, and Page 138):
PNG
media_image3.png
221
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
228
337
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
195
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
166
212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
229
313
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pd (II) or Pt (II) ([0006]). While the reference discloses these compounds as metal-assisted delayed fluorescent (MADF) emitters and not phosphorescent emitters and phosphorescent aggregate as recited in the present claims, given that the reference discloses the identical compounds recited in the present claims, it is the Examiner’s position that the compounds disclosed by the reference are necessarily phosphorescent emitters and phosphorescent aggregates as recited in the present claim.
Furthermore, the reference does not explicitly disclose that these compounds harvest triplet excitons and emit yellow-amber light. However, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, the compounds disclosed by the reference necessarily harvest triplet excitons and emit yellow-amber light as recited in the present claims.
Li et al does not disclose that the compound is an excimer emitter. However, given that the reference discloses the identical compound, i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
221
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
disclosed in Paragraph [0175] of the instant Specification as Pd3O8-p and as being an excimer emitter, it is the Examiner’s position that the compounds disclosed by Li et al necessarily function as excimer emitters as recited in the present claims.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the compound harvests triplet excitons, emits yellow-amber light, and is an excimer emitter, and would naturally arise and be achieved by a phosphorescent layer comprising the phosphorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that the compounds have a small enemy gap between singlet and triplet allowing excitons to be thermally promoted to the singlet state and be efficiently emitted via thermally assisted delayed fluorescence (TADF) while the remaining triplet excitons can emit via the available efficient phosphorescent pathway ([0039]).
Given that both Nakano et al and Li et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising phosphorescent emitter, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular emitters as taught by Li et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such emitters in the phosphorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compounds disclosed by Li et al are square planar complexes.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compounds disclosed by Li et al are tetradentate platinum complexes
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li et al does not disclose that the compound emits light in the range of about 480 to about 700 nm. However, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses compound identical to those recited in the present claims, the compounds of the reference necessarily emit light in the range of about 480 to about 700 nm as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image8.png
364
438
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula I:
PNG
media_image9.png
301
440
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1, R3, R4, and R5 are H; Y4d and Y5d are N and the remainder of groups Y are C; X2 is O; L1 is absent; L3 an unsubstituted linking group; Ar3 and Ar4 are 6-membered aryl groups. i.e. benzene; Ar1 is a 6-membered heteroaryl; and Ar5 is a 9-membered fused heteroaryl.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Li et al M is Pd(II).
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image10.png
295
489
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula IV:
PNG
media_image11.png
237
487
media_image11.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II), R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y6d are C; U3 and U4 are N; and X is O.
Regarding claim 12, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image12.png
275
386
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula V of the claims:
PNG
media_image13.png
221
376
media_image13.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y4c are N; and X is O.
Regarding claim 14, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image14.png
377
425
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula VII:
PNG
media_image15.png
240
396
media_image15.png
Greyscale
.
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y6d are C; U4 is N; and X is O.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image16.png
285
369
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by Formula VIII:
PNG
media_image17.png
218
334
media_image17.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y4d are C; and X is O.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image18.png
333
470
media_image18.png
Greyscale
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula IX:
PNG
media_image19.png
236
404
media_image19.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt(II) or Pd(II); R1 to R6 are H; Y1a to Y6d are C; U1 is NR, where R is methyl; U4 is N; and X is O.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Li et al discloses the following compounds:
PNG
media_image20.png
350
424
media_image20.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image21.png
302
460
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
229
313
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
195
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where M is Pt, identical to that recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the formula:
PNG
media_image22.png
180
277
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where R1l, R2l, R3l and R51 are tert-butyl and R4l is H.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Li et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Nakano et al discloses a flat panel display, i.e. a consumer product, comprising the disclose organic light emitting device ([0530]).
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al (US 2015/0034927) in view of Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0301629) and Nii et al (WO 2004/108857)
Regarding claim 1, Nakano et al discloses the following white organic light emitting device ([0279] and Figure 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
412
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (20) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the hole transporting zone (30) corresponds to the recited hole transport layer. The hole transporting zone (30) is in contact with the anode (20). The cathode (60) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and the electron transporting zone (50) corresponds to the recited electron transport layer. The electron transporting zone (50) is in contact with the cathode (60). Layers 40-44 correspond to the recited emissive layer. These emitting layers (40-44) are found between the hole transporting zone (30) and the electron transporting zone (50). The emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and a fluorescent emitting layer (44), where the phosphorescent emitter (40) layer is disposed between the fluorescent emitting layer (44) and is in contact with the hole transporting zone (30). The fluorescent emitter layer (44) is disposed between the phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and the electron transporting zone (50). The fluorescent emitting layer (44) comprises a fluorescent emitter and a host compound ([0311] and [0314]) and emits blue light ([0279]). The phosphorescent emitting layer (40) emits yellow light ([0279]) and contains a phosphorescent emitter ([0310]).
Given that the reference does not require that compound represented by Formula (1-1) to be necessarily present in the phosphorescent emitter layer (44), the phosphorescent emitting layer (44) can therefore consist of the phosphorescent emitter as recited in the present claims. That is, while the reference prefers that the light emitting layer comprises the host compound represented by Formula (1-1) ([0016]), the reference does not require that the compound is necessarily present in light emitting layer, i.e. the reference merely requires that the compound is necessarily present in the disclosed device, see Paragraph [0173].
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the blue fluorescent emitter harvest singlet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Hatakeyama et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following blue light emitting polycyclic aromatic compound ([0127], [0362], and Page 3 – 1-2621):
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a fluorescent emitter (Abstract, [0127] and [0001]).
The reference does not explicitly disclose that this compound harvests singlet excitons; however, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, that the compound of the reference necessarily harvests singlet excitons.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. compound harvests singlet excitons would naturally arise and be achieved by a fluorescent layer comprising the fluorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that utilization of this compound in an organic light emitting device results in an excellent organic electroluminescent element (Abstract).
Given that both Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting fluorescent emitter layers, and in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular as taught by fluorescent emitter disclosed by Hatakeyama et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such fluorescent emitters in fluorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, Nakano et al does not disclose that phosphorescent emitter is an excimer emitter and harvests triplet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Nii et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following phosphorescent compound (Page 3 Lines 14-17 and Page 69 – Compound 38):
PNG
media_image23.png
185
186
media_image23.png
Greyscale
.
The compound has a phosphorescent emission maximum in the range of 400 to 700 nm (Page 1 – Lines 19-24). Accordingly, it is the Examiner’s position that the compound emits yellow-amber light as recited in the present claims.
The reference does not explicitly disclose that this compound harvests triplet excitons and is an excimer emitter. However, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, the compound disclosed by the reference necessarily harvests triplet excitons and is an excimer emitter. Furthermore, given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, it is the Office’s position that the phosphorescent compound disclosed by the reference is a phosphorescent aggregate.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the compound harvests triplet excitons and is an excimer emitter, and would naturally arise and be achieved by a phosphorescent layer comprising the phosphorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that the compound has high external quantum efficiency and maximum luminance as well as luminescent characteristics (Page 123 – Lines 1-25 and Page 124 Lines 1-3).
Given that both Nakano et al and Nii et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising phosphorescent emitter, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular emitters as taught by Nii et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such emitters in the phosphorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compound disclosed by Nii et al are square planar complexes.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compound disclosed by Nii et al are platinum complexes
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Nii et al discloses that the compound emits light in the range of 400 to 700 nm, overlapping the recited range of 480 to 700 nm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Nii et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image24.png
409
411
media_image24.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula II:
PNG
media_image25.png
210
308
media_image25.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt (II), R1 to R4 are H; Y1a to Y4d are C; and X is CRR’, where R and R’ are H.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the formula:
PNG
media_image22.png
180
277
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where R1l, R2l, R3l and R51 are tert-butyl and R4l is H.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Nii et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Nakano et al discloses a flat panel display, i.e. a consumer product, comprising the disclose organic light emitting device ([0530]).
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al (US 2015/0034927) in view of Hatakeyama et al (US 2018/0301629) and Xia et al (US 2012/0223634).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano et al discloses the following white organic light emitting device ([0279] and Figure 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
412
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the anode (20) corresponds to the recited first electrode; the hole transporting zone (30) corresponds to the recited hole transport layer. The hole transporting zone (30) is in contact with the anode (20). The cathode (60) corresponds to the recited second electrode; and the electron transporting zone (50) corresponds to the recited electron transport layer. The electron transporting zone (50) is in contact with the cathode (60). Layers 40-44 correspond to the recited emissive layer. These emitting layers (40-44) are found between the hole transporting zone (30) and the electron transporting zone (50). The emissive layer comprises a phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and a fluorescent emitting layer (44), where the phosphorescent emitter (40) layer is disposed between the fluorescent emitting layer (44) and is in contact with the hole transporting zone (30). The fluorescent emitter layer (44) is disposed between the phosphorescent emitting layer (40) and the electron transporting zone (50). The fluorescent emitting layer (44) comprises a fluorescent emitter and a host compound ([0311] and [0314]) and emits blue light ([0279]). The phosphorescent emitting layer (40) emits yellow light ([0279]) and contains a phosphorescent emitter ([0310]).
Given that the reference does not require that compound represented by Formula (1-1) to be necessarily present in the phosphorescent emitter layer (44), the phosphorescent emitting layer (44) can therefore consist of the phosphorescent emitter as recited in the present claims. That is, while the reference prefers that the light emitting layer comprises the host compound represented by Formula (1-1) ([0016]), the reference does not require that the compound is necessarily present in light emitting layer, i.e. the reference merely requires that the compound is necessarily present in the disclosed device, see Paragraph [0173].
The reference teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, the reference does not disclose that the blue fluorescent emitter harvest singlet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Hatakeyama et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following blue light emitting polycyclic aromatic compound ([0127], [0362], and Page 3 – 1-2621):
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a fluorescent emitter (Abstract, [0127] and [0001]). The reference does not explicitly disclose that this compound harvests singlet excitons.; however, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, that the compound of the reference necessarily harvests singlet excitons.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. compound harvests singlet excitons would naturally arise and be achieved by a fluorescent layer comprising the fluorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that utilization of this compound in an organic light emitting device results in an excellent organic electroluminescent element (Abstract).
Given that both Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising blue light emitting fluorescent emitter layers, and in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular as taught by fluorescent emitter disclosed by Hatakeyama et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such fluorescent emitters in fluorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combined disclosures of Nakano et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above; however, Nakano et al does not disclose that phosphorescent emitter is an excimer emitter and harvests triplet excitons as recited in the present claims.
Xia et al discloses an organic light emitting device, where the light emitting layer comprises the following phosphorescent compounds (Abstract, Page 51 – Compound 14, and Page 57 – Compound 74):
PNG
media_image26.png
304
478
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
224
266
media_image27.png
Greyscale
The reference does not explicitly disclose that these compounds harvest triplet excitons, emit yellow-amber light or are excimer emitters; however, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses the identical compounds recited in the present claims, the compounds disclosed by the reference necessarily harvest triplet excitons and emit yellow-amber light. Furthermore, given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, it is the Office’s position that the phosphorescent compound disclosed by the reference is a phosphorescent aggregate.
It is noted that the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the compound harvests triplet excitons, emits yellow-amber light, and is an excimer emitter, and would naturally arise and be achieved by a phosphorescent layer comprising the phosphorescent emitter compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that the compound have improve device efficiency, line shape and lifetime (Abstract).
Given that both Nakano et al and Xia et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising phosphorescent emitter, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular emitters as taught by Xia et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such emitters in the phosphorescent emitter layer of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Nakano et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compound disclosed by Xia et al are square planar complexes.
Regarding claim 4, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, it is clear that the compound disclosed by Xia et al are platinum complexes
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia et al does not discloses that the compound emits light in the range of about 480 to about 700 nm. However, it is the Examiner’s position given that the reference discloses compound identical to those recited in the present claims, the compounds of the reference necessarily emit light in the range of about 480 to about 700 nm as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Xia et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image28.png
310
478
media_image28.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula III:
,
PNG
media_image29.png
251
296
media_image29.png
Greyscale
,
where M is Pt (II); R1 to R4 are H; Y1a to Y4d are C; U1 and U2 are NR, where R is a substituted aryl; and X is O.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Xia et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image30.png
335
371
media_image30.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by General Formula VI:
PNG
media_image31.png
245
306
media_image31.png
Greyscale
,
where M s Pt(II); R1 to R4 are H; U2 is NR, where R is a substituted aryl; and X is O.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the formula:
PNG
media_image22.png
180
277
media_image22.png
Greyscale
,
where R1l, R2l, R3l and R51 are tert-butyl and R4l is H.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
identical to that recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Nakano et al, Hatakeyama et al, and Xia et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Nakano et al discloses a flat panel display, i.e. a consumer product, comprising the disclose organic light emitting device ([0530]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Applicants argue that Nakano, Hatakeyama, and Li, either alone or combination, do not teach or suggest the use of a phosphorescent aggregate. However, it is the Office’s position given that Li et al, Nii et al, and Xia et al disclose the identical emitting compounds recited in the present claims, that the phosphorescent compounds disclosed by the references are necessarily phosphorescent aggregates.
Applicants argue that Li does not teach or suggest that the cited compounds can be used as phosphorescent aggregate emitters. However, as discussed in the rejections above, given that the reference discloses the identical emitter compound recited in the present claims, it is the Office’s position that the compounds disclosed by the reference are necessarily aggregate emitters.
Applicants argue that phosphorescent molecular aggregates would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to be fundamentally distinct from conventional phosphorescent emitters for at least the reason that a phosphorescent emitter in an aggregated formation would expectedly provide different light emitting properties than a non-aggregated phosphorescent emitter. However, while phosphorescent molecular aggregates may be different from convention phosphorescent emitters, it firstly should be noted that as discussed in Paragraph 7 above, a fair reading of the Specification as originally filed reveals that the phrase “phosphorescent aggregate” or the word “aggregate” is conspicuous by its absence. While the Specification discloses phosphorescent emitters, phosphorescent dopants and phosphorescent OLEDs, the Specification as originally filed simply fails to disclose “phosphorescent aggregate” as recited in the present claims. Secondly, as discussed above, it is the Office’s position given that Li et al, Nii et al, and Xia et al disclose the identical emitting compounds recited in the present claims, that the phosphorescent compounds disclosed by the references are necessarily phosphorescent aggregates.
Thirdly, it is noted that Applicants have not proffered any data, i.e. evidence, that suggests that the compounds disclosed by Li et al, Nii et al, and Xia et al are not phosphorescent aggregates, or that the compounds disclosed by the reference are not fundamentally distinct from conventional phosphorescent emitters. To that end it is noted that it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the compounds disclosed by Li et al, Nii et al, and Xia et al must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
Finally, it is noted that given that Nakano et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer consists of a phosphorescent compound, and given that Li et al, Nii et al, and Xia et al disclose specific phosphorescent compounds, the light emitting layer obtained from the combined teachings of Nakano in view of Li et al, Nii et al, or Xia et al must necessarily possess a phosphorescent aggregate. That is, one definition of aggregate is “formed from separate units collected into a whole” (see attached definition from The Free Dictionary), and a light emitting layer possessing only phosphorescent emitters would necessarily possess separate phosphorescent emitter compounds, i.e. separate units, collected into a whole.
As evidence of unexpected results, Applicants point to Figures 1c and 1d of Ameri et al (see pages of Efficient, Color-Stable, and Long-Lived White Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Utilizing Phosphorescent Molecular Aggregates, attached to this Office Action - Adv. Mater., 2023, 2208361), i.e.
PNG
media_image32.png
291
809
media_image32.png
Greyscale
where Device 1 corresponds to the device structure recited in claim 1, i.e.
electron transport layer / fluorescent emitter layer / phosphorescent emitter layer / hole transporting layer.
In this device, the phosphorescent emitter layer comprises Pd308-Py5, i.e.
PNG
media_image33.png
151
135
media_image33.png
Greyscale
,
while the fluorescent light emitting layer comprises tDABNA:BH, i.e.
PNG
media_image34.png
347
568
media_image34.png
Greyscale
Device 1 displays significantly enhanced EQEs greater than 20% at high luminance and operational stability with an LT95 of over 300 hours.
Device 2, is a comparative OLED comprising the same phosphorescent and fluorescent compounds as Device 1, the only difference is that this device has the following structure of layers, i.e.
electron transport layer / phosphorescent emitter layer / fluorescent emitter layer / hole transporting layer.
That is, in this device, the order of the fluorescent and phosphorescent light emitting layers are reversed relative to Device 1. The comparative device displays reduced peak EQE at less than 6% at high luminance and depleted operational stability.
Applicants’ arguments are not found to be persuasive for the following reasons. Firstly it is noted that Device 1 is not commensurate in scope with the cited prior art of record for the following reasons. Although Hatakeyama et al discloses t-DABNA, corresponding to the fluorescent compound utilized, the secondary references Li et al, Nii et al, and Xia et al all disclose different phosphorescent compounds than utilized for the phosphorescent compound (see discussion above).
Secondly, it is noted that in Device 1, the fluorescent and phosphorescent light emitting layers only exemplify one (1) phosphorescent compound and one (1) fluorescent compound, while instant claim 21 encompasses all possible phosphorescent and fluorescent compounds where the fluorescent emitter harvests singlet excitons and emits blue light and the aggregate phosphorescent emitter harvests triplet excitons and emits yellow-amber light. Accordingly, it is unclear if the results obtained for Deice 1 are indicative of all phosphorescent and fluorescent compounds encompassed by the present claims, or only for the particular phosphorescent and fluorescent compounds exemplified in Device 1. Accordingly, it is the Examiner’s position that the inventive example is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims.
Applicants argue that the evidence of Ameri is sufficient to establish the connection between the observed unexpected results and the claimed device architecture which requires physical contact between the phosphorescent aggregate and the hole transporting layer. However, while the Ameri may establish some connection between the observed results and the claimed device architecture, the fact remains that the evidence pointed to by Applicants is not commensurate with the scope of the present claims for the reasons discussed above.
Applicants argue that the unexpected results are agnostic from the identity of the emitters themselves and that it is therefore unnecessary that the claims be directed to specific emitters in
order to demonstrate that the unexpected results are evidence of nonobviousness. However, it is noted Applicants have not proffered any evidence, i.e. data, supporting their position. To that end it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the unexpected results being agnostic from the identity of the emitters themselves must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
Applicant argue that the evidence provided in Ameri does not demonstrate that the
unexpected results are provided by the identity of the phosphorescent or fluorescent emitter, and instead, the unexpected results of the claimed device are provided by the contact between the phosphorescent aggregate and the hole transporting layer, i.e. eliminating the contact between the phosphorescent aggregate and the hole transporting layer causes the unexpected benefits to disappear entirely. However, it should be noted that as discussed in the rejections above, Nakano et al discloses the following organic light emitting device:
PNG
media_image1.png
412
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
where the phosphorescent emitting layer is in contact with hole transport layer or zone, i.e. the reference discloses the configuration disclosed by Ameri et al, and therefore, Nakano recognizes the criticality of the contact between the phosphorescent emitter layer and the hole transporting layer.
Applicants argue that Nii fails to cure the deficiencies of Nakano and Hatakeyama for at least the reasons that Nii does not teach or suggest a device comprising a phosphorescent aggregate or provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with the motivation to believe that the claimed combination of a phosphorescent aggregate with the specific layer arrangement would produce the unexpected results exhibited by the claimed device. However, firstly as discussed in the rejections above Nii discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, it is the Office’s position that the phosphorescent compound disclosed by the reference is a phosphorescent aggregate. Secondly, as discussed above, Nakano recognizes the criticality of the contact between the phosphorescent emitter layer and the hole transporting layer.
Thirdly, as discussed above, given that Nakano et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer consists of a phosphorescent compound, and Nii et al discloses specific phosphorescent compounds, the light emitting layer obtained from the combined teachings of Nakano in view of Nii et al must necessarily possess a phosphorescent aggregate. That is, one definition of aggregate is “formed from separate units collected into a whole” (see attached definition from The Free Dictionary), and a light emitting layer possessing only a phosphorescent emitter would necessarily possess separate phosphorescent emitter compounds, i.e. separate units, collected into a whole.
Applicants argue that Xia fails to cure the deficiencies of Nakano and Hatakeyama for at least the reasons that Xia does not teach or suggest a device comprising a phosphorescent aggregate or provide a person of ordinary skill in the art with the motivation to believe that the claimed combination of a phosphorescent aggregate with the specific layer arrangement would produce the unexpected results exhibited by the claimed device. However, firstly as discussed in the rejections above Xia discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, it is the Office’s position that the phosphorescent compound disclosed by the reference is a phosphorescent aggregate. Secondly, as discussed above, Nakano recognizes the criticality of the contact between the phosphorescent emitter layer and the hole transporting layer.
Thirdly, as discussed above, given that Nakano et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer consists of a phosphorescent compound, and Xia discloses specific phosphorescent compounds, the light emitting layer obtained from the combined teachings of Nakano in view of Xia must necessarily possess a phosphorescent aggregate. That is, one definition of aggregate is “formed from separate units collected into a whole” (see attached definition from The Free Dictionary), and a light emitting layer possessing only a phosphorescent emitter would necessarily possess separate phosphorescent emitter compounds, i.e. separate units, collected into a whole.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00AM – 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights