DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on January 29, 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled. Claim 3 has been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, and 11 – 23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed January 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Mori as set forth in the office action filed November 4, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed January 29, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Mori and further in view of Jang as set forth in the office action filed November 4, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yoo is silent about any amount of CuI exceeding 1.00 on the hole transport material basis. Applicant further argues that the 1 wt% of Yoo is not equivalent to Applicant’s parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the hole transport material as Applicant’s limitation anchors the dopant to the mass of the HTM, not the entire hole transport layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoo does not limit the amount of CuI in the hole transport region. In Example 3 and Comparative Example X, CuI is included as a dopant in the hole transport region in an amount of 1 wt% [0435]. While this amount is calculated based on the entire weight of the hole transport region, and not the weight of the hole transport material as claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill would adjust and vary the amount of CuI in the hole transport layer to within the range claimed. Examiner further notes that when the amount of CuI based on the hole transporting material is calculated, the amount of CuI in the two Examples is different amounts due to the difference in MW of the hole transporting materials in Example 3 and Comparative Example X of Yoo. Finally, to the extent that Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select an amount of CuI corresponding to at most 1 wt% based on the weight of the mass of the hole transport material taught by Yoo, Examiner notes that the claimed value is 1.00, which contains 3 significant digits, whereas the amount taught by Yoo only contains 1 significant digit. An amount of CuI of 1.01 would be rounded to 1 wt% as taught by Yoo, but would also fall within the claimed range.
Applicant argues that with respect to the claimed work function and LUMO values, the Office has not met its burden to support the claim that the properties are inherent. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented in the rejection filed November 4, 2025, Examiner cites Applicant’s own disclosure in [0290] of the HOMO values of CuI and the work function of an electrode with a mixture of 95% In to 5 Sn% as support for the inherency of the properties.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 2, 4 – 8, 11 – 19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US20190058132A1) in view of Mori (US20200043672A1).
As per claims 1, 2, and 4 – 8, and 12 – 14 Yoo teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer comprising an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer further comprises a hole transport region located between the first electrode and the emission layer (Abstract: “An organic light-emitting device includes: a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode; an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, the organic layer including an emission layer; and a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer.”)
The hole transport region comprises a compound represented by CuF, CuCl, CuBr, CuI, AgF, AgCl, AgBr, or AgI ([0075 – 0077]: “In one embodiment, the hole transport region may further include a metal halide… the metal halide may include at least one selected from CuI, AgI….”)
Wherein the hole transport region further comprises a hole transport material ([0014]: “The hole transport region includes a compound represented by Formula 101
PNG
media_image1.png
134
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.”)
Wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 is present in an amount from about 0.01 parts by weight to about 49.99 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the hole transport material (Yoo does not limit the amount of CuI in the hole transport region. In Example 3 and Comparative Example X, CuI is included as a dopant in the hole transport region in an amount of 1 wt% [0435]. While this amount is calculated based on the entire weight of the hole transport region, and not the weight of the hole transport material as claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill would adjust and vary the amount of CuI in the hole transport layer to within the range claimed.).
Yoo teaches that the first electrode may be a transmissive electrode where the material for forming the electrode is selected from indium tin oxide ([0260]). Yoo does not teach:
The first electrode comprises tin oxide in an amount greater than about 1 wt% and equal to or less than about 7 wt% with respect to 100 wt% of the first electrode
Wherein the first electrode further comprises indium oxide, indium zinc oxide, zinc oxide, or any combination thereof
Mori teaches photoelectric conversion devices, including light-emitting devices ([0003]). Mori teaches that a transparent ITO electrode is formed on a substrate ([0121]). Mori further teaches that the crystallization starting temperature of ITO can be controlled by adjusting the doping ratio of Sn to In2O3 and that if the doping ratio is a large value, impurities are contained in a large amount and consequently the crystallization starting temperature becomes high ([0124]). Mori teaches that a ratio of In/Sn of 24 or more (In:Sn = 96 mass%: 4 mass%)has a crystallization starting temperature of 140 to 150°C, compared to a ratio of In/Sn of 13 or more (In:Sn = 93 mass%: 7 mass%), which has a crystallization starting temperature of around 180°C ([0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ITO electrode of Yoo with the claimed amount of tin oxide motivated by the desire to predictably produce an electrode with lower crystallization starting temperature as taught by Mori ([0124]).
Regarding the work function of the first electrode in claim 4, and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level of claim 12, the prior art combination is silent with respect to the claimed values. However, the prior art combination teaches substantially the same compound of Formula 1 and substantially the same composition of anode, therefore, the claimed properties are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Examiner notes that in the instant application as published, CuI is taught to have a EHOMO_HIL of -2.1 eV ([0290]) and an electrode with a mixture of 95% In to 5% Sn is taught to have a work function of -5.20 eV ([290]). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112. When the values of the work function and LUMO energy levels are within the range claimed in claims 4 and 12, the relationships claimed in claims 13 and 14 would naturally flow from the values.
As per claim 11, Yoo teaches:
Wherein the compound represented by Formula 1 comprises a p-dopant ([0436]: “As seen in Examples 2 and 3, when a p-dopant or a metal halide is further included in the hole transport layer, a lower driving voltage and higher external quantum efficiency may be exhibited.”)
As per claim 15, Yoo teaches:
Wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, the hole injection layer directly contacts the first electrode and comprises the compound ([0076]: “In one or more embodiments, the hole transport region may include a hole injection layer, and the hole injection layer may include a metal halide.” In [0266], Yoo teaches the structure of the hole transport layer from the first electrode may be hole injection layer/hole transport layer, meaning the hole injection layer directly contacts the first electrode as claimed.)
As per claim 16, Yoo teaches:
Wherein the interlayer further comprises an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode, and comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and electron injection layer or any combination thereof ([0263]: “The organic layer 150 may include a hole transport region between the first electrode 110 and the emission layer and an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode 190.” & [0313]: “The electron transport region may include at least one selected from a buffer layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer…”)
As per claim 17, Yoo teaches:
Wherein at least one of the emission layer and the electron transport region comprises a pyridine-containing compound (In [0354], Yoo teaches that the electron transport region may include at least one compound selected from among compound ET2
PNG
media_image2.png
338
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which contains the claimed pyridine compound.)
As per claim 18, Yoo teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light emitting device ([0391]: “The organic light emitting device may be included in various apparatuses.”)
As per claim 19, Yoo teaches:
Further comprising a thin film transistor having a source electrode and a drain electrode, the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor ([0392]: “The light-emitting apparatus may further include, in addition to the organic light-emitting device, a thin film transistor including a source electrode and a drain electrode. One of the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin film transistor may be electrically connected (e.g., coupled) to one of the first electrode or the second electrode of the organic light-emitting device.)
As per claims 21 and 23, Yoo teaches:
Wherein the hole transport material comprises NPB and CuI ([0075 – 0077]: “In one embodiment, the hole transport region may further include a metal halide… the metal halide may include at least one selected from CuI,”… & [0268]: “In additional, the hole transport region may include at least one selected from…. NPB.”)
The CuI is present in an amount of 2 parts by weight to 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of NPB (Yoo does not limit the amount of CuI in the hole transport region. In Example 3 and Comparative Example X, CuI is included as a dopant in the hole transport region in an amount of 1 wt% [0435]. While this amount is calculated based on the entire weight of the hole transport region, and not the weight of the hole transport material as claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill would adjust and vary the amount of CuI in the hole transport layer to within the range claimed.)
The hole injection layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm ([0305]: “When the hole transport region includes at least one selected from a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer, the thickness of the hole injection layer may be in a range of about 100 Å to about 9,000 Å.” This converts to 10 – 900 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US20190058132A1) in view of Mori (US20200043672A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, 11 – 19, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 20, the prior art combination does not teach:
Further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer or any combination thereof
Jang teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of the prior art combination because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US20190058132A1) in view of Mori (US20200043672A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, 11 – 19, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Karg (US2010001301A1).
As per claim 22, Yoo teaches:
At least one capping layer arranged outside at least on of the first electrode or the second electrode ([0380]: “An organic light-emitting device 20 of FIG. 2 includes a first capping layer 210.”)
The prior art combination does not teach:
Each capping layer comprising a material having a refractive index of 1.6 or more
Karg teaches that suitable materials for capping layers have a refractive index between 1.6 and 4 and that these materials in the capping layer provide an improvement regarding the reduction of the reflectance of the outer surface of the capping layer and regarding the increase of the transmittance of the capping layer ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the capping layer of the prior art combination with a refractive index of 1.6 or more as claimed motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED with a reduction of the reflectance of the outer surface of the capping layer and increasing the transmittance of the capping layer as taught by Karg ([0037]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights