DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received February 9, 2026. Claims 1 and 18 were amended. Claim 9 is a canceled claim. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2023/0301175 A1) in view of Huh et al. (US 2019/0214571 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment dated February 9, 2026.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2023/0301175 A1) in view of Huh et al. (US 2019/0214571 A1), and in further view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1) is withdrawn due to the amendment dated February 9, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2023/0301175 A1) in view of WO 2017/034239 A1 (note that a translation copy is provided with this office action and is relied upon in the citations below).
Ryu et al. discloses OLEDs that include a first host anthracene derivative and a first dopant pyrene derivative (see abstract) and a “hole blocking layer” of an azine derivative (see par. 19). The anthracene derivative is according to Formula 1 (see 72) and includes at least specific compound “3D-P1” (see page 102), which is the same as instant Formula 1 compound “1-1” of instant claim 18 (Group I):
PNG
media_image1.png
202
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding the second compound of instant claims 1, 14, 16, and 18 (Group II), the “hole blocking layer” including an azine derivative such as a triazine derivative (see par. 104-105), but Ryu et al. does not appear to exemplify an instant Formula 2 and 3 azine compound. In analogous art, WO ‘239 teaches triazine derivatives for an organic layer that may include an electron transport and/or hole blocking layer of an organic light emitting device (see page 9 of translation) according to Chemical Formula 1 that more specifically be the following compound (see translation pg. 2):
PNG
media_image2.png
166
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The above specific WO ‘239 Formula 1 compound is a positional isomer compound of specific instant compound “2-14” of instant claim 18 and of the instant “second compound” of instant claim 1. Also, WO ‘239 teaches the following Formula 1 compound, which is a positional isomer of instant “2-2” (see page 2 of translation) of claim 18 and of the instant “second compound of instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
180
152
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per MPEP 2144.09, compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a positional isomer of a Formula 1 compound (such as the two reproduced above from translation copy page 2) as taught by WO ‘239, which are the same as instant compounds in claim 18, for the hole blocking/electron transporting triazine derivative material in the Ryu et al. device, because one would expect the triazine derivatives to be similarly useful in providing the function of hole blocking/electron transporting within a light emitting device. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Ryu et al. and WO ‘239 with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the anthracene derivatives are part of the emitting layer (see abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu et al. teaches the required functional layers including electron blocking layer material and hole blocking layer material (see abstract and par. 18-19). With respect to claim 4, the azine derivative is in a “hole blocking layer” per the instant “electron transport region” (see par. 19, 104-105).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu et al. teaches a dopant emitting material may be a pyrene amine derivative (see par. 18 and entire document) and applicant also teaches a dopant may be a pyrene amine derivative. Ryu et al. is silent with respect to specifically discussing properties of disclosed pyrene amine derivatives per the limitation recited in instant claim 5, but presence of a singlet energy level minus triplet energy level would naturally flow from the fluorescent material dopant material. As a similarly structured pyrene amine from the instant specification preferred material, the pyrene amine dopant teaching in Ryu et al. to meet the requirements of a dopant material, absent evidence otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require Applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes. The burden of proof is on Applicants where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and the Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu et al. teaches at least an arylamine dopant emitter per instant Formula 4-1 (see Formula 2, par. 75):
PNG
media_image4.png
158
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 8, a light emitting layer may be blue emitting (see par. 58).
Regarding claim 10, the anthracene derivative according to Formula 1 (see 72) includes at least specific compound “3D-P1” (see page 102 and reproduced immediately below), which contains a phenyl group corresponding to “benzene” group:
PNG
media_image1.png
202
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 11, the phenyl group corresponds to instant “11-1”. Regarding claims 12 and 13, in at least “3D-P1”, corresponding groups to instant L11 and L12 are single bond and with respect to Formula 3, at least single bond or benzene may be in compounds of Formula 10 (see par. 104-105). Regarding claim 15, in “3D-P1” the corresponding group to instant X11-containing group is instant Formula 1-1.
Regarding claim 17, substituent groups for Ryu et al. Formula 1 and Formula 10 as discussed above may be selected within the recited groups.
Regarding claim 19, a TFT, source and drain electrode may be provided (see par. 46-48).
Regarding claim 20, a color filter may be provided (see par. 210).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2023/0301175 A1) in view of WO 2017/034239 A1, and in further view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Ryu et al. and WO 2017/034239 A1 are relied upon as set forth above.
Ryu et al. modified by WO ‘239 teaches a light emitting device as discussed above, but do not specifically teach a capping layer on an outer surface of an electrode of the device which has a refractive index of 1.6 or higher. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a capping layer on an OLED (see Jeong abstract) having a refractive index in a range of 1.6 to about 2.6 (see Jeong claim 2 on page 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a capping layer according to Jeong et al. as part of a sealing layer for protecting a device according to Ryu et al. modified by WO ‘239, because one would expect the Jeong et al. capping layer to be similarly beneficial for protecting a device display according to Ryu et al. modified by WO ‘239. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Ryu et al. modified by WO ‘239 in view of Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786