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 23, 2025.
Claims 1, 7 – 9, 16, 17, 19 – 22, 24 and 26 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 6, 14, 23 and 25 have been cancelled. Claims 2 – 5 and 10 – 13 have been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 7 – 9, 15 – 22, 24 and 26 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed October 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 6, 9, 14, and 19 – 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki in view of Tasaki 2 as set forth in the office action filed July 23, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 7, 8, and 16 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki in view of Tasaki 2 and further in view of Shin as set forth in the office action filed July 23, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed October 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki in view of Tasaki 2 and further in view of Cho as set forth in the office action filed July 23, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 9 have been amended to recite that the first and second emitting material layers “consist of” an anthracene host and a pyrene dopant and that the first and second emitting material layer has a single-layered structure, therefore the combination of the first and second emitting layer in the device of Tasaki cannot be interpreted as the claimed first emitting material layer or the second emitting material layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As claimed, the OLED comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, a first emitting layer, a second emitting layer and a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting material layers. The multi-unit emitting unit of Tasaki as described in [0687 – 0689], is shown in Figure 3 of Tasaki
PNG
media_image1.png
356
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. In this figure, the fourth emitting layer 5D can be interpreted as the claimed first emitting material layer, layer 5A can be interpreted as the claimed second emitting material layer, and the charge-generation layer 8 is between the two. The second emitting layer 5B and third emitting layer 5C can be interpreted as other layers of the OLED, allowed for by the open-ended “An organic light emitting diode (OLED) comprising:” language.
Applicant argues that in Table 46 of Tasaki 2, the lifetime of a device including compound BH1-85, in which only the pyrene moiety is deuterated, is 28% lower than a device including compound BH1-84, in which all the hydrogens are deuterated. Therefore, Applicant argues, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to wholly deuterate the compound in Tasaki, not just the pyrene core as presently claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both devices containing BH1-85 and BH1-84 have significantly higher efficiency and lifetimes than the device containing an undeuterated compound BH1-84 in Ref. Ex. 1. Examiner notes that a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, Examiner notes that deuterium is expensive (see page 75 of Applicant’s remarks) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust and vary the percentage of deuteration of the compound based on the desire to predictably balance the cost of additional deuteration and the improvements in lifetime.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on October 23, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Applications 17/614,911 (corresponding to U.S. Patent 12,439,816), 17/618,234, and 17/622,101 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 – 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds of claims 19 – 22 are low resolution and it is difficult to discern the subscripts of the D variables.
Appropriate 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 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, 9, 19 – 22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki (US20220285625A1) in view of Tasaki 2 (US20220359829A1).
As per claims 1, 9 and 19 – 22, Tasaki teaches:
A substrate and an organic light emitting diode positioned on the substrate, the organic light emitting diode comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, a first emitting material layer being positioned between the first and second electrodes (Fig. 1, as described in [0150 – 151] teaches an organic light emitting diode on top of a substrate wherein the organic light emitting diode contains an anode and a cathode, corresponding to the first and second electrodes, and an emitting material layer provided in between the electrodes.)
The first emitting material layer consisting of a first host being an anthracene derivative, wherein the first host is represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
258
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(In Example 1, Tasaki teaches the first emitting layer contains D-BH-1 as a host material ([0768]). The structure of this compound is shown in [0759] to be
PNG
media_image3.png
198
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. This reads on Formula 1 wherein R1 and R2 are C10 aryl groups, L1 is a C6 arylene group, a is 1 and b, c, and d are 0 so that L2 – L4 do not exist; e is an integer of 8. This compound is the same as compound
PNG
media_image4.png
120
212
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of claims 19 and 21.)
The first light emitting material consisting of a first dopant being a pyrene derivative, wherein the first dopant is represented by Formula 3
PNG
media_image5.png
284
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Tasaki teaches that the dopant material includes compounds of Formula 11
PNG
media_image6.png
164
300
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0342 – 0343]). A specific compound taught by Tasaki as an example of Formula (11) is
PNG
media_image7.png
188
318
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed compound wherein X1 and X2 are each S; Ar1 and Ar2 are C6 aryl groups; g is 0 so that R3 does not exist. The compound differs from the claimed formula and claimed compound
PNG
media_image8.png
166
322
media_image8.png
Greyscale
in claims 20 and 22 in the deuterium substitutions on the pyrene core are not present in the specific compound of Tasaki.)
Tasaki 2 teaches pyrene derivatives in EL devices ([0011]). Tasaki 2 teaches that deuterated pyrene compounds are more stable than non-deuterated pyrene compounds and that deuterated pyrene compounds can prevent declines in device efficiency ([0233]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pyrene dopant of Tasaki with the addition of deuterium atoms to arrive at the claimed invention, motivated by the desire to predictably produce a compound with higher stability that prevents declines in device efficiency as taught by Tasaki 2 ([0233]). As there are a limited number of locations for the deuterium atoms, and deuterium is expensive, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust and vary the percentage of deuteration of the compound based on the desire to predictably balance the cost of additional deuteration and the improvements in lifetime and arrive at a compound wherein only the pyrene core is deuterated, as claimed.
Further comprising a second emitting material layer consisting of a second host being an anthracene derivative and a second dopant being a pyrene derivative (In [0681], Tasaki teaches that the light-emitting unit may be of a stacked type including a plurality of emitting layers with a spacing layer between each emitting layer. Tasaki teaches that the first and second emitting units may be selected from the above-mentioned emitting units ([0688]). When the first and second emitting units are both selected to contain the first emitting layer described in the specification, both units would contain the deuterated anthracene derivative host and the pyrene derivative dopant as claimed.)
The second emitting material layer being positioned between the first emitting material layer and the second electrode, a first charge generation layer between the first and second emitting material layers, wherein the first emitting material layer has a single layered structure (The multi-unit emitting unit of Tasaki as described in [0687 – 0689], is shown in Figure 3 of Tasaki
PNG
media_image1.png
356
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. In this figure, the fourth emitting layer 5D can be interpreted as the claimed first emitting material layer, layer 5A can be interpreted as the claimed second emitting material layer, and the charge-generation layer 8 is between the two. Layers 5D and 5A are a single layer as claimed.)
As per claims 24 and 26, Tasaki teaches:
Further comprising an electron blocking layer between the first electrode and the first emitting material layer, a hole blocking layer between the first emitting material layer and the second electrode, wherein a first surface of the first emitting material layer contacts the electron blocking layer, and a second surface of the first emitting material layer contacts the hole blocking layer (As shown in Figure 3 above, the first surface of the fourth emitting layer 5D contacts the electron injection/transporting layer and the first surface of the first emitting layer 5A contacts the hole-injecting/transporting layer. Since the electron injection/transporting layer does not transport holes, it is interpreted as a hole blocking layer as claimed and since the hole-injecting/transporting layer does not transport electrons, it is interpreted as an electron blocking layer as claimed. Furthermore, in [0667], Tasaki teaches that the hole-transporting region may also include an electron-blocking layer and that the electron transporting region may include a hole-blocking layer.)
Claims 7, 8, and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki (US20220285625A1) in view of Tasaki 2 (US20220359829A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, 19 – 22, 24 and 26 above and further in view of Shin (US20180166647A1).
As per claims 7 and 16, Tasaki teaches the organic EL device may be provided in a tandem organic EL device with multiple emitting units with charge generation layers in between each emitting unit ([0681 – 0689]). The prior art combination does not specifically teach:
A third emitting material layer configured to emit a yellow-green light and positioned between the first charge generation layer and the second emitting material layer, a second charge generation layer positioned between the second and third emitting material layers
Shin teaches tandem structure white OLED devices ([0006]). Shin teaches that one of the emitting units may emit blue light and the other emitting unit may emit yellow-green light ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a yellow-green emitting layer in the device of the prior art combination in the claimed position motivated by the desire to predictably produce a white OLED device as taught by Shin ([0006 – 0007]).
As per claims 8 and 17, Tasaki teaches the organic EL device may be provided in a tandem organic EL device with multiple emitting units with charge generation layers in between each emitting unit ([0681 – 0689]). The prior art combination does not specifically teach:
A third emitting material layer configured to emit a red light and a green light and positioned between the first charge generation layer and the second emitting material layer, a second charge generation layer positioned between the second and third emitting material layers
Shin teaches tandem structure white OLED devices ([0006]). Shin teaches an emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer and a green emitting material layer ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an emitting layer emitting a red light and a green light in the device of Tasaki in the claimed position motivated by the desire to predictably produce a white OLED device as taught by Shin ([0006 – 0007]).
As per claim 18, the prior art combination does not teach:
Wherein a red pixel, a green pixel and a blue pixel are defined on the substrate, the organic light emitting diode corresponds to each of the red, green and blue pixels, wherein the organic light emitting device further includes a color filter layer disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode or on the organic light emitting diode and corresponding to the red, green and blue pixels
Shin teaches the OLED may include a color filter layer to selectively absorb particular wavelengths of lights ([0133]). Shin teaches that red, green, and blue color filters may be formed in pixel regions and may be disposed to overlap an organic emitting material layer to display a full color image ([0133]).
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 color filter on the device of the prior art combination in order to produce a full color image as taught by Shin ([0133]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki (US20220285625A1) in view of Tasaki 2 (US20220359829A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, 19 – 22, 24 and 26 above and further in view of Cho (US20180342655A1).
As per claim 15, the prior art combination does not teach:
Wherein a red pixel, a green pixel and a blue pixel are defined on the substrate
The organic light emitting diode corresponds to each of the red, green and blue pixels
Wherein the organic light emitting device further includes a color conversion layer disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode or on the organic light emitting diode and corresponding to the red and green pixels
Cho teaches white emitting diodes with multiple emitting stacks and charge generation layers between the stacks ([0087]). This is structurally similar to the device of Tasaki. Cho teaches that the white emitting diode is converted into red light for a red pixel, green light for a green pixel and blue light for a blue pixel by the appropriate color conversion layer ([0087]). Cho teaches that in this way, full-color images can be provided ([0087]).
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 color conversion layer on the device of the prior art combination in order to produce a full color image as taught by Cho ([0087]).
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