LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND AN ELECTRONIC APPARATUS COMPRISING THE SAME

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered. Election/Restrictions The applicant’s election without traverse of wherein (a) the first compound is represented by Formula 1, (b) the host is a compound represented by Formula 311-1 and a compound represented by Formula 312-1, and (c) the dopant is represented by Formula 411 in the reply filed on 02/24/2025 was previously acknowledged. After reconsideration of the requirement of election of species set forth in the Office action dated 12/30/2024 and in an effort to further prosecution, the requirement of election of species was withdrawn with respect to (b) the host and (c) the dopant ONLY. The requirement of election of species with respect to (a) the first compound has been maintained. Response to Amendment The applicant's amendment of 07/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 14 are amended due to the applicant's amendment. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, and 12-20 are pending. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly cited Lin et al. US-20140175388-A1. Response to Arguments Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 40-42 of the reply dated 07/27/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 41 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment. Specifically, the claim have been amended to recite the two emission layers each include a host and a dopant, the hosts included in each emission layer are the same, the dopants included in each emission layer are the same. Examiner's response – The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein two emission layers each include a host and a dopant, the hosts included in each emission layer are the same, the dopants included in each emission layer are the same and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below in view of newly cited Lin et al. US-20140175388-A1. Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 42 that claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 12-20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and therefore applicant requests that these rejections be withdrawn. Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to these claims and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US-20140175388-A1 (hereinafter "Lin") in view of Langer et al. WO-2010079051-A1 (hereinafter "Langer-WO", see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Langer-MT"). Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12, 16-17, and 19, Lin teaches an organic light emitting diode, including an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer, wherein the light emitting layer includes a first phosphorescent light emitting layer, a first isolation layer, configured to conduct holes and to block electrons, a blue fluorescent light emitting layer, a second isolation layer, configured to conduct electrons and to block holes, and a second phosphorescent light emitting layer, stacked in a direction from the anode to the cathode, and including a hole transport layer between the anode and the light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer between the light emitting layer and the cathode (¶ [0005]). Lin teaches that the first and the second phosphorescent light emitting layers may be of the same color (¶ [0032]), and Lin teaches wherein the first and the second phosphorescent light emitting layers comprise a host and a dopant (¶ [0032]-[0033]). Lin teaches the beneficial properties of improved light emitting efficiency ¶ [0020]) and improved light stability (¶ [0020]). Lin does not exemplify a device wherein the two emission layers each include a host and a dopant, the hosts and the dopants included in each of the first and second phosphorescent emission layer are the same. However, as discussed above, Lin teaches wherein the first and the second phosphorescent light emitting layers comprise a host and a dopant and wherein they may be the same color. Lin teaches the host material being CBP (¶ [0032]-[0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first and second phosphorescent emitting layer comprising a host and a dopant wherein the host and the dopant are the same as to obtain the same color and wherein the host is CBP, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device of Lin with the beneficial properties of improved light emitting efficiency and light stability. See MPEP § 2143.I.(A). Lin does not specifically teach a device wherein the first or second isolation layer comprises a first compound, where a bandgap of the first compound is 3.5 eV and the first compound includes a compound represented by one of claimed Formulae 1 to 3. However, Lin teaches the second isolation layer is configured to conduct electrons and to block holes (¶ [0005] and [0014]). Langer teaches siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds for use as a hole blocking material in an organic light emitting device (Langer-MT, page 1 of 61, lines 6-10; Langer-MT, page 5 of 61, lines 13-19). Langer teaches that when using the compounds, OLEDs are obtained which have good efficiencies and a long service life and which can be operated in particular at a low operating voltage (Langer-MT, page 5 of 61, lines 20-22). Langer teaches specific examples of the siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds including PNG media_image1.png 235 214 media_image1.png Greyscale (page 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lin by forming the second isolation layer out of the hole blocking material, as taught by Langer. One would have been motivated to do so because Lin teaches the second isolation layer is configured to block holes and Langer teaches siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds for use as a hole blocking material in an organic light emitting device. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07. Additionally, Langer teaches organic light emitting device comprising the compounds have good efficiencies and a long service life and which can be operated in particular at a low operating voltage and therefore forming the second isolation layer in the device of Lin out of the compound of Langer would be expected to yield the benefit of good efficiencies, a long service life, and low operating voltage, as described above. Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the compound PNG media_image1.png 235 214 media_image1.png Greyscale , because it would have been choosing from the list of exemplary siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds specifically taught by Langer, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a hole blocking material and possessing the benefits taught by Langer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising the siIyI- and heteroatom-substituted compounds of Langer having the benefits taught by Langer in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E). Compound PNG media_image1.png 235 214 media_image1.png Greyscale of Langer meets the claimed Formula 1 and corresponds to the claimed Compound 19. Langer appears silent with respect to the property of wherein a bandgap of the compound PNG media_image1.png 235 214 media_image1.png Greyscale is about 3.5 eV or more and wherein a lowest excitation triplet energy level of the compound is about 2.8 eV or more. The instant specification recites that Compound 19 PNG media_image2.png 168 127 media_image2.png Greyscale has a lowest excitation triplet energy level (T1) of 3.07 eV and a bandgap of 4.12 eV (specification page 120, Table 1). Since Langer teaches compound PNG media_image1.png 235 214 media_image1.png Greyscale , the identical structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein a bandgap of the compound of Langer is about 3.5 eV or more and wherein a lowest excitation triplet energy level of the compound is about 2.8 eV or more is considered to be inherent and falls within the range in the claim, absent evidence otherwise. 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 reference 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. The modified device of Lin in view of Langer comprises the layer structure: anode/ hole transport layer / first phosphorescent light emitting layer comprising a host and a dopant / first isolation layer / blue fluorescent light emitting layer / second isolation layer comprising the compound PNG media_image1.png 235 214 media_image1.png Greyscale of Langer / second phosphorescent light emitting layer comprising the same host and dopant as the first phosphorescent light emitting layer / electron transport layer / cathode. The layers first isolation layer / blue fluorescent light emitting layer / second isolation layer together correspond to the claimed "first layer" and are between and in direct contact with the two emission layers. The compound PNG media_image1.png 235 214 media_image1.png Greyscale of Langer corresponds to the first compound. The first isolation layer, the blue fluorescent light emitting layer, and the second isolation layer each create space between the first phosphorescent light emitting layer and the second phosphorescent light emitting layer and therefore are each a spacing layer comprising a spacing compound. Therefore, the modified device of Lin in view of Langer meets claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12, 16-17, and 19. Regarding claim 7, Lin in view of Langer teaches the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Lin in view of Langer does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the first layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 10 nm. However, Lin teaches the first isolation layer having a thickness of 1-10 nm (¶ [0029]), the blue fluorescent light emitting layer having a thickness of about 5 nm to about 20 nm (claim 3), and the second isolation layer having a thickness of 1-10 nm (¶ [0030]). The thickness of these layers together would range from about 7 nm to about 40 nm. Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a thickness in the range of about 1 nm to about 10 nm as claimed. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 18, Lin in view of Langer teaches the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Lin in view of Langer does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the first layer is closer to the hole transport region than the electron transport region. However, Lin teaches the device may further comprise an electron injection layer (¶ [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the device further comprising an electron injection layer, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of a device of Lin with the beneficial properties of improved light emitting efficiency and light stability. See MPEP § 2143.I.(A). In the resulting device, the "first layer" made up of the layer structure first isolation layer / blue fluorescent light emitting layer / second isolation layer would be closer the hole transport region. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US-20140175388-A1 (hereinafter "Lin") in view of Langer et al. WO-2010079051-A1 (hereinafter "Langer-WO", see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Langer-MT") as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lee et al. KR-102100620-B1 (hereinafter "Lee-KR" and see English language translation referred to herein as "Lee-MT") and Ko et al. US-20180114927-A1 (hereinafter "Ko"). Regarding claims 12-15, Lin in view of Langer teaches the device as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Lin in view of Langer does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein the host and the dopant are as recited in claims 12-15. Lee teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a light emitting layer between an anode and a cathode (page 2 of 14, lines 10-13) comprising a host material, a first dopant material, and a second dopant material, wherein the first dopant material may include a first delayed fluorescent material and the second dopant material may include a phosphorescent material (Lee-MT, page 2 of 14, lines 36-38). Lee teaches as a result of these materials, efficiency and life of the organic light emitting device can be improved (Lee-MT, page 6 of 14, lines 3-6). Lee teach examples of the first delayed fluorescent material include DABNA-1 (5,9-Diphenyl-5H,9H-[1,4]benzazaborino[2,3,4-kl]phenazaborine) (Lee-MT, page3 of 14, line 34 to page 4 of 14, line 1). Ko teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising an emission layer between a first and second electrode and comprising an organometallic compound of Formula 1 comprising a ligand of Formula 2A (¶ [0032] and ¶ [0008]) and a host (¶ [0211]). Ko teaches examples of the organometallic compound in paragraph [0133] including compound 1 PNG media_image3.png 187 237 media_image3.png Greyscale (page 15), and examples of the organometallic compound's host in paragraph [0247] including H36 PNG media_image4.png 247 213 media_image4.png Greyscale (page 50) . Ko teaches the organic light-emitting device including the organometallic compound having a low driving voltage, and high luminescent efficiency (¶ [0373]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form one of the first phosphorescent light emitting layer and/or second phosphorescent light emitting layer in the device of Lin comprising a host, a first delayed fluorescent dopant, and a second phosphorescent dopant, based on the teaching of Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency and life, as taught by Lee. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the phosphorescent dopant and the host out of the materials taught by Ko, based on the teaching of Ko. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a low driving voltage, and high luminescent efficiency, as taught by Ko. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. US-20140175388-A1 (hereinafter "Lin") in view of Langer et al. WO-2010079051-A1 (hereinafter "Langer-WO", see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Langer-MT") as applied to claim 19 and further in view of Koo et al. US-20050116291-A1 ("Koo"). Regarding claim 20, Lin in view of Langer teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 19. Lin in view of Langer does not specifically teach a device as discussed above further comprising a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor comprises a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically coupled to at least one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor. Koo teaches provides an apparatus for use in a display device in which gradation is displayed easily by optimizing heat treatment conditions of thin film transistors (¶ [0011]). Koo teaches an organic electroluminescence display device comprising a thin film transistor comprising an active layer formed on an insulating substrate and equipped with source regions and drain regions, and a protection film formed on a surface of an insulating substrate having the thin film transistor and equipped with a via hole for exposing a part of the source electrode or the drain electrode, wherein an organic emitting device is electrically coupled to the thin film transistor through the via hole (¶ [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thin film transistor comprising an active layer formed on an insulating substrate and equipped with source regions and drain regions, and a protection film formed on a surface of an insulating substrate having the thin film transistor and equipped with a via hole for exposing a part of the source electrode or the drain electrode, wherein an organic light emitting device of Lin in view of Langer is electrically coupled to the thin film transistor through the via hole, based on the teaching of Koo. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an apparatus for use in a display device in which gradation is displayed easily by optimizing heat treatment conditions of thin film transistors, as taught by Koo. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached 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. /ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786