D 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 February 6, 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 7 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 6 and 9 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s declaration, filed February 6, 2026, has been fully considered and is hereby entered.
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed February 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 6, and 9 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim 2 as set forth in the office action filed November 7, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim 2 and further in view of Jeong as set forth in the office action filed November 7, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed February 6, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim 2 and further in view of Jang as set forth in the office action filed November 7, 2025.
Response to Arguments
In light of the data presented in the declaration by Applicant, Applicant’s arguments, filed February 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 12, 15, 17 and 18 under Ito have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park (US20210359220A1).
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 – 6, 9 – 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20210359220A1). Sim (US20190051841A1) is used as an evidentiary reference for claims 13 and 14.
As per claims 1 – 6, and 9 – 12, Park teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer and an electron transport region, the electron transport region is between the emission layer and the second electrode, the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer ([0044]: “The organic electroluminescence device 10 according to embodiments may include the first electrode EL1, the hole transport region HTR, the emission layer EML, the electron transport region ETR, and the second electrode EL2 that are sequentially stacked.” & [0022]: “In an embodiment, the electron transport region may include an electron transport layer, a hole blocking layer disposed between the emission layer and the electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer disposed between the second electrode and the electron transport layer.”)
The electron transport layer comprises a first material that is a heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
204
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Park teaches compounds of Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
184
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0008]). A specific compound taught by Park is compound 1-23
PNG
media_image3.png
312
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0102]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar1 is represented by Formula 2A, X1 and X2 are N; T1 and T2 are each independently C; ring CY1 is a C12 heterocyclic group, namely a condensed cyclic group in which a first group, at least one second group and at least one third group are condensed with each other, where the first group is a pyridine group, the second group is a benzene group, and the third group is a pyridine group as per condition (iv) in claim 3, namely a pyridoquinoline group as per claim 4, namely a group represented by Formula 2(11) in claim 5
PNG
media_image4.png
132
302
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y3 is a N and the remaining Y atoms are C; L3 to L5 are each independently a single bond; a3 to a5 are an integer of 1; R3 is a phenanthrenyl group and R5 is hydrogen; R4 is a phenyl group substituted with a phenyl group; the compound does not contain a benzo[k]fluoranthene group and the ring is not a benzimidazole group, therefore Park meets Conditions 1 and 2 in claim 1. Similarly, none of R3, L3, R4 nor L4 are pyridoquinoline, therefore Park meets conditions 3, 4 and 5 in claim 1. This compound also meets condition (iv) in claim 2. Park teaches that the heterocyclic compound represented by Formula 1 may be used in the electron transport region ([0002]).)
The electron transport layer comprises a second material comprising a first metal in the form of an element of the first metal, a halide of the first metal, a complex comprising the first metal, or any combination thereof ([0108]: “When the electron transport region ETR includes the electron injection layer EIL, the electron transport region ETR may include the compound of an embodiment represented by Formula 1 described above. The electron transport region ETR may be… lithium quinolate (LiQ). This metal is an alkali metal as required by claim 9, specifically lithium as required by claim 10. This compound is represented by Formula 3-1
PNG
media_image5.png
300
272
media_image5.png
Greyscale
in claim 12, wherein A1 is N, A2 is C, A3 is O; CY11 is a C5 heterocyclic group and CY12 is a C6 carbocyclic group. As claim 11 is directed to a metal halide, but does not require that the second compound is a metal halide, Park teaches the limitations of claim 11.)
While Park does not specifically teach compound 1-23 in an electron transport layer of an OLED with LiQ, Park teaches that compounds of Formula 1 are predictably useful as materials in electron transport layers in OLEDs and that they can be used in combination with metal containing materials, such as LiQ in the electron transport region. The combination of any of the layers in the electron transport region is interpreted as the claimed electron transport layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a particular material within the scope of Formula 1, such as compound 1-23 as a co-material in an electron transport layer of an OLED with a metal containing material, such as LiQ and arrive at the claimed OLED.
As per claims 13 and 14, Park teaches an electron transport layer with a combination of LiQ and a compound, such as compound 1-23, which contains a phenanthroline moiety. Sim teaches that when phenanthroline moieties are used with LiQ compounds in an electron transport layer, the two nitrogen atoms may form a coordinate bond with a metal atom in the n-dopant to improve electron injection characteristics ([0130]). As the two nitrogen atoms are separated by three bonds, when they are coordinated with the Li atom, they will necessarily form a 5-membered ring as required by claim 14.
As per claim 17, since a buffer layer is required but not compositionally defined, it is the Examiner’s opinion that a buffer layer can be interpreted as a sublayer of the electron transport region.
As per claims 18, Park teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device (As an OLED is an electronic apparatus, it is interpreted as the claimed electronic apparatus.)
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20210359220A1) as applied to claims 1 – 6, 9 – 14, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Jeong (US20170162796A1)
Park does not teach:
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 connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor ([0199]). Jeong teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode ([0203]). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode ([0205]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Park in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20210359220A1) as applied to claims 1 – 6, 9 – 14, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Jang (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 20, Park 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 Park because Jang demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 15 and 16, the closest prior art is considered to be Park. Park teaches compounds of the claimed Formula used in the electron transport region with LiQ. However, Park does not teach, suggest nor motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to co-deposit the compounds in a ratio of between 9.9:0.1 to about 3:7 as required by claims 15 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. US20210273177A1 and US20210050542A1 both teach electron transport materials that read on the claimed Formula and can be used with metal complexes such as LiQ. The cited applications have a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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