DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendment received April 29, 2026. Claims 1, 2, and 6 were amended. Claims 10 and 11 are non-elected withdrawn claims. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are currently under consideration.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Ping, et al. "High-efficiency and superior color-stability white phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes based on double mixed-host emission layers." Organic Electronics 31 (2016): 136-141 (hereinafter Chen et al.) in view of Hsiao-Fan Chen et al. (US 2019/0119312 A1) (hereinafter US ‘312).
Chen et al. (Organic Electronics) teaches devices comprising phosphorescent emitters with double mixed-host emission layers (see abstract and title). For instant see device “S2” of Figure 3 (a) (see top of page 139):
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
278
108
media_image1.png
Greyscale
phosphorescent “PO-01” layer.
Devices are further described as having a phosphorescent “PO-01” material layer of X nanometers where X is 0.05, 0.1 or 0.3 nm, respectively, in devices W1 to W3 (see bottom left column of page 138). While PO-01 is taught as the phosphorescent emitter in the example device, it is not seen where a platinum phosphorescent emitter is specifically used. In analogous art, US ‘312 teaches platinum emitters useful for OLED applications (see abstract). More specifically US ‘312 teaches a platinum emitter shown on page 120 of US ‘312, which is the same as instant P38 of instant claim 18 and within Formula 401 of instant claim 17:
PNG
media_image2.png
238
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a phosphorescent emitter as taught by US ‘312 for a device structure as taught by Chen et al., because one would expect the platinum metal complex phosphorescent emitter to be similarly useful as an emitting material.
Further regarding the device of claim 1, as mentioned above, Chen et al. devices may have a phosphorescent material layer of thicknesses 0.05, 0.1, or 0.3 nm, respectively, in devices W1 to W3 (see bottom left column of page 138). The layer thicknesses per the instant “layer” meet the range of 0 angstrom to less than 10 angstroms (i.e., less than 1 nm). Regarding claims 2, 6, 7, 12, and 13, layers are included on both sides of the ultrathin phosphorescent layer in the S2, W1-W3 device per the instant “first” layer and “second layer” and the layers taught by Chen et al. are comprised of a mixture of “TCTA:TPBi” at a thickness of 15 nm (i.e., 150 angstroms) (see Figure 3a, S2, top of page 139 and bottom page 138 text). Material TCTA is a hole transporting type material and TPBi is an electron transporting type material (see “2. Experimental” first paragraph on page 137). Regarding claim 8, the ratio of TCTA to TPBi may be 2:1 (see Figure 3a, S2, top of page 139 and bottom page 138). Regarding claims 3 and 16, device S2 comprises a layer TCTA per the instant “electron-blocking layer” and comprises a coating of MoO3 as a “hole injection layer” (see Figure 3a, S2, top of page 139). Regarding claims 4 and 16, device S2 comprises a layer TPBi per instant “hole-blocking layer” and comprises a coating of Liq per the instant “electron injection layer” (see Figure 3a, S2, top of page 139 and W1-W3 bottom page 138).
Regarding claim 5, as secondary reference US ‘312 teaches an identical phosphorescent material as instant “P38” of the instant disclosure, the compound is considered to inherently have the same emission properties as claimed. The Patent and Trademark Office can require Applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes. The burden of proof is on Applicants where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and the Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 14 and 15 dependent upon claim 1, Chen et al. structure S2 comprises layers “TCTA:TPBi/phosphorescent/TCTA:TPBi” where one of the mixed layers reads upon “hole blocking” by including material “TPBi” and the other mixed layer reads upon “electron blocking” by including material “TCTA” (see Figure 3a, S2, page 139 and see W1-W3 page 138).
Regarding claim 19, Chen et al. teaches applications for use of OLEDs (see “1. Introduction”, page 136).
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select materials for device structures of the references as discussed above wherein the resultant materials and device layers would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Ping, et al. "High-efficiency and superior color-stability white phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes based on double mixed-host emission layers." Organic Electronics 31 (2016): 136-141 (hereinafter Chen et al.) in view of Hsiao-Fan Chen et al. (US 2019/0119312 A1) (hereinafter US ‘312), and in further view of Ito et al. (US 2015/0318510 A1).
Chen et al. and US ‘312 are relied upon as set forth above.
As discussed above, Chen et al. discloses layers are included on both sides of the ultrathin phosphorescent layer in the S2 device per the instant “first” layer and “second layer” and the layers taught by Chen et al. are comprised of a mixture of “TCTA:TPBi” at a thickness of 15 nm (i.e., 150 angstroms) (see Figure 3a, S2, top of page 139 and see W1-W3 on page 138). Material TCTA is a hole transporting type material and TPBi is an electron transporting type material (see “2. Experimental” first paragraph on page 137). It is not seen where the specific host hole transport material and electron transport material of instant claim 9 is specifically described by Chen et al. In analogous art, Ito et al. teaches the following compound H1 as a suitable host material, which is the same as instant H1 of instant claim 9 (see par. 154-156), and teaches the following compound CBP as a host (see par. 132), which is the same as instant CBP of instant claim 9:
PNG
media_image3.png
134
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
140
290
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected host materials as taught by Ito et al. for a device structure as taught by Chen et al. in view of US ‘312, because one would expect the materials to be similarly useful as host material.
Alternatively and additionally with respect to claim 9, Ito et al. teaches a mixture of hole transport material and electron transport material, which may comprise at least the following compounds that are the same as instant H39 and H49, respectively, of claim 9:
PNG
media_image5.png
238
228
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see page 8)
PNG
media_image6.png
118
238
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see page 60).
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected mixed hole transport and electron transport materials as taught by Ito et al. for layers comprising a mixture of hole transport and electron transport compounds in a device structure as taught by Chen et al. in view of US ‘312, because one would expect the materials to be similarly useful as compounds providing hole transport and electron transport functions.
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select materials for device structures of the references as discussed above wherein the resultant material and device layers would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Ping, et al. "High-efficiency and superior color-stability white phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes based on double mixed-host emission layers." Organic Electronics 31 (2016): 136-141 (hereinafter Chen et al.) in view of Hsiao-Fan Chen et al. (US 2019/0119312 A1) (hereinafter US ‘312), and in further view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0098686 A1).
Chen et al. and US ‘312 relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Chen et al. teaches a light emitting device (see Figure 3), but does not appear specifically to teach a display comprising a transistor with a source and drain electrode. In analogous art, Jeong et al. teaches providing a source region and a drain region as part of a thin film transistor (see par. 61) as part of an OLED display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a thin film transistor including known layers of a thin film transistor connected to an organic light emitting element as taught by Jeong et al. to a device as taught by Chen et al. in view of US ‘312 to form a display device, because Jeong et al. teaches using a thin film transistor with a device is beneficial in forming an operational light emitting display. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosures of Chen et al. in view of US ‘312 and Jeong et al. with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the emission layer has been amended to be a single film consisting only of the metal complex. In response, the office submits light emitting device structures disclosed by primary reference Chen et al. (Organic Electronics) S2 and W1-W3 also includes an ultra-thin layer emitter layer only comprising phosphorescent metal complex emitting material and a secondary reference Chen et al. (US ‘312) is provided to teach a specific Pt complex phosphorescent emitter the same as claimed. Chen et al. structure S2 comprises layers “TCTA:TPBi/phosphorescent/TCTA:TPBi” (see Figure 3a, S2, page 139). While embodiments showing additional emitter layers, mixed materials, and/or structures with further materials may be also taught, these embodiments do not negate the teaching of the embodiment with a single layer of ultra-thin phosphorescent emitter material.
Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the teachings of the references and applicant’s arguments do not specifically explain how the amendments avoid the teachings of the references. Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights