DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 01/21/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0000759) in view of Xia et al. (US 2015/0090981 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 11/07/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-4 and 6-21 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.
Claim 1, which the other claims are dependent upon, recite that “at least two of . . . R29, and R30 . . .” which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as variables R29 and R30 are nowhere found in the recited formulae. They should be deleted.
Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0000759) in view of Inoue et al. (US 2012/0104373 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 16-20, Lee et al. discloses a display apparatus comprising an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (OLED) comprising green-emitting, red emitting, and blue-emitting sub-pixel regions as shown below ([0001]-[0002]):
PNG
media_image1.png
358
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 9) comprising substrate (1), blue emission unit (20), green emission unit (30), blue emission unit (40) each comprising blue, green, and blue light-emitting layers, respectively ([0067]); the green light-emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant material such as iridium-based organometallic compounds ([0073], [0077]). The device comprises a first electrode (10), charge-generating layers (25 and 35), second electrode (50), protective layer (60), and a color-controlling unit (201). The color-controlling unit comprises first color-controlling element comprising a first quantum dot for green color conversion (70a) and a first color filter (blue cut filter) located on the first color-controlling element (80a), second color-controlling element comprising a second quantum dot for red color conversion (70b) and a second color filter (blue and green cut filter) located on the second color-controlling element (80b), and a third color-controlling element for blue emission comprising a blue color filter (75c) and a light-scattering element located between the blue color filter and the OLED substrate (71c). The first color filter is an absorption-type green color filter, the second color filter is an absorption-type red color filter, and the third color filter is an absorption-type blue color filter ([0021], [0025]). Lee et al. discloses that the (green) light-emitting layer comprises a phosphorescent dopant, such as an iridium-based organometallic compound ([0014]-[0015]). Lee et al. discloses that smaller the size of the core of the quantum dot, the shorter the wavelength of the emitted light (such that the core portion of the second color dot (emitting red) is greater in size than the core portion of the first quantum dot (emitting green) ([0046]). Lee et al. discloses another embodiment as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
274
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 5) comprising a fourth sub-pixel region (and lacking a color-controlling element as indicated by “(blank)”) emitting the combined colors of the blue, green, and blue emission units. Lee et al. further discloses that the first electrodes (10a, 10b, and 10c) can be electrically connected to each thin film transistor (TFT) element of the TFT array substrate comprising a plurality of TFTs ([0062]-[0063]). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose an organometallic compound of Applicant’s Formula 1.
Inoue et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
258
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 21) such that n1 = 2, n2 = 1, L2 = organic ligand (acetylacetonate), L1 = Applicant’s Formula 2A (with X21 = O, T2 = carbon atom bound to M, T1 = carbon atom bound to ring CY-1, T3-4 = carbon atom not bound to ring CY1 nor M, T5-8 = C, a2 = 0, ring CY1 = Applicant’s Formula CY1-4 (with Y1 = N), a1 = 2, c1 = 1, L1 = single bond, b1 = 1, and R1 = unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl)), and M = transition metal (Ir) of Applicant’s Formula 1; represented by Applicant’s Formula CY2-1; L2 = Applicant’s Formula 3A (with Y13-14 = O, a11 = 1, and T11 = -C(Z11)=C(Z12)-C(Z13)= (with Z11 = Z13 = methyl and Z12 = hydrogen). Inoue et al. discloses that the compounds serve as phosphorescent dopant material (in combination with host material) in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device for emission of “a variety of colors” including red, green, and blue ([0204], [0254]-[0255]). Inoue et al. discloses that its inventive compounds have high heat resistance (Abstract). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Inoue et al. (above) into any of the light-emitting layers of the organic EL device as disclosed by Lee et al. (as dopant material), including the light-emitting layer of the green emission unit. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Inoue et al. which is directed to known and viable phosphorescent dopant materials with high heat resistance.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Lee et al. discloses another embodiment comprising a color-conversion element comprising a third quantum dot for blue conversion (70c), on top of which lies a green cut filter (80c):
PNG
media_image4.png
274
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-17 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
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 JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights