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 October 14, 2025.
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claims 12 – 15 and 17 – 20 have been cancelled previously.
Claims 1 – 11 and 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed October 14, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as set forth in the office action filed July 18, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 14, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2 – 5 and 8 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato and further in view of Ito as set forth in the office action filed July 18, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 – 11 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR20180012193A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 6, 7, and 11, Cha teaches:
An organic light emitting device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and an emitting layer disposed between the anode and the cathode; wherein a hole transport layer and an electron blocking layer are disposed between the anode and the emitting layer ([0007]: “An organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode provide opposite the anode, a light-emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode; a first organic layer provided between the anode and the light-emitting layer; and a second organic layer provided between the first organic layer and the light-emitting layer.” In [0191], Cha teaches that the second organic layer includes a hole transport layer containing a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2. In [0199], Cha teaches that the second organic layer includes an electron suppression layer containing a compound represented by Chemical Formula 3. The electron suppression layer is interpreted as the claimed electron blocking layer.)
Wherein a material of the hole transport layer comprises one or more compounds having the following structural formula
PNG
media_image1.png
266
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Cha teaches that the hole transport layer contains a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 ([0191]). Cha teaches that Formula 2 is
PNG
media_image2.png
120
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0014]). A particular compound taught by Cha within the scope of Formula 2 is
PNG
media_image3.png
150
170
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on page 9. While this compound contains a biphenylene group linking the two amine groups instead of the claimed phenylene group, Cha teaches that the linking group L5 can be an arylene group ([0098]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the biphenylene group with a phenylene group and arrive at the claimed compound.)
Wherein a material of the electron blocking layer comprises a compound having the following structural formula
PNG
media_image4.png
332
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Cha teaches that the electron suppression layer contains a compound represented by Chemical Formula 3 ([0199]). Cha teaches that Formula 3 is
PNG
media_image5.png
172
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0021]). A particular compound within Formula 3 taught by Cha is
PNG
media_image6.png
142
160
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in [0158], which is the same compound as that claimed.)
As per claims 1, 6, 7, and 11, Cha does not specifically teach the HOMO and LUMO values of the hole transport layer and electron blocking layer, the hole mobility of the electron transport layer and the hole mobility of the electron blocking layer, the lowest triplet energy of the electron blocking layer. However, Cha teaches the same structures as disclosed by Applicant, therefore the corresponding properties and relationships are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall 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.
Claims 2 – 5, and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR20180012193A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, and 11 above and further in view of Ito (KR20150084562A, using the previously provided machine translation.
As per claims 2 – 5, and 8 – 10, Cha teaches that the emission layer preferably comprises an anthracene derivative as the host material and an aryl amine derivative as the dopant ([0230 – 0231) and that the arylamine derivative is preferably an aryldiamine derivative comprising a pyrene skeleton ([0231]). Cha does not specifically teach:
The dopant material comprises a compound having the following structural formula
PNG
media_image7.png
218
216
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The host material comprises a compound having the following structural formula
PNG
media_image8.png
98
186
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ito teaches an OLED with an emission layer that contains a host material comprising an anthracene group represented by Formula 2 and a dopant comprising an aryldiamine pyrene compound represented by Formula 1A ([0005 – 0017]) & [0272 – 0273]). A particular host material within the scope of Formula 2 taught by Ito is
PNG
media_image9.png
86
168
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0167]), which is the same as the host material claimed. Ito also teaches compounds, such as
PNG
media_image10.png
116
182
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0154]), which contain methyl-substituted phenyl groups. Based on the definitions for the variables in Formula 1A, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add methyl groups and remove the phenyl linking group to arrive at the claimed dopant material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed materials as the emission layer in the device of Cha because Cha teaches that compounds of the claimed structural formulas are predictably suitable for use in the emission layer of the device of Cha and Ito teaches that the combination of materials was known as predictably suitable for use in OLEDs to provide low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency and long life (Abstract).
As per claims 2 – 5, and 8 – 10, Cha is silent with respect to the HOMO levels of the dopant, the LUMO levels of the dopant, the LUMO levels of the host, the hole mobility of the host material, the electron mobility of the host material, and the electron mobility of the dopant material. As shown above, Cha teaches the same compounds as disclosed by Applicant for the electron blocking layer and the hole transport layer and Ito teaches the same compounds disclosed by Applicant as the host material and dopant material. Therefore, the properties of the HOMO levels of the dopant, the HOMO levels of the electron blocking layer, the LUMO levels of the electron blocking layer, the LUMO levels of the dopant, the LUMO levels of the host, the hole mobility of the electron blocking layer, the hole mobility of the host material, the electron mobility of the host material, the electron mobility of the dopant material, the electron mobility of the hole transport layer and the electron mobility of the electron blocking layer and relationships claimed are considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art (and would be expected to fall 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 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.
As per claim 16, Ito teaches:
A display apparatus comprising the organic light emitting device ([0004] “The organic light emitting device emits blue, green, and red light according to a compound included in the light emitting layer to realize a full-color display.”)
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 Cha in a display apparatus with the structure claimed because Ito teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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