ELECTROLUMINESCENT DEVICE

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 July 15, 2026. Claims 1, 3 – 5, 12, 20, 24 and 37 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 28 and 29 have been cancelled. Claim 2 has been cancelled previously. Claims 1, 3 – 27, and 30 – 37 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL. Response to Amendments Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed July 15, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a join inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed April 16, 2026. Claim 29 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 15, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 28, and 32 – 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon 3 in view of Moon 2 as set forth in the office action filed April 16, 2026. Claim 28 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 15, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 28, 30, and 32 – 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Moon 2 as set forth in the office action filed April 16, 2026. Claim 28 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 15, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 3 – 28, and 31 – 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleetham in view of Moon 2 as set forth in the office action filed April 16, 2026. Claim 28 has been cancelled. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 – 27, and 30 – 37 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, 3 – 27, and 31 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20150077220A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Moon 2 (US20220127288A1). As per claims 1, 3 – 25, and 31 – 37, Lee teaches: An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer contains at least a first compound ([0021]: “In addition, the present invention provides an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and one or more organic layers interposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein at least one of the one or more organic layers comprises a compound of Formula 1.”) Wherein the first compound has a structure of H-L-E, wherein the H has a structure represented by Formula A-6 PNG media_image1.png 196 150 media_image1.png Greyscale (Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent compound represented by formula 1 PNG media_image2.png 122 138 media_image2.png Greyscale ([0012]). A particular compound taught by Lee is compound C-2 PNG media_image3.png 104 110 media_image3.png Greyscale on Page 17, which reads on the claimed Formula A-6 wherein Z1 to Z2 and Z6 to Z8 are CRz1, Zh1 to Zh8 are all CRzh where Rz1 and Rzh are all hydrogen; the compound is represented by H-54 in claim 5; L is a single bond as required by claim 11, namely group L-0 in claim 33; E has the structure represented by E-11 PNG media_image4.png 104 122 media_image4.png Greyscale , wherein RA represents a dual-substitution of an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; the group is represented by E-2 in claim 7 and E-19 PNG media_image5.png 100 114 media_image5.png Greyscale in claim 10. This compound is the same as compound 1-13 PNG media_image6.png 178 118 media_image6.png Greyscale in claim 12.) Lee teaches that the organic electroluminescent compound of formula 1 may be comprised in the light emitting layer as a host material and that the light-emitting layer may further comprise a dopant ([0027]). Lee teaches that the phosphorescent dopants include metal complex compounds such at Ir ([0004]). Lee does not specifically teach: Wherein the organic layer contains a second compound, wherein the second compound is a metal complex, wherein the metal is selected from a metal with a relative atomic mass greater than 40, and the metal complex comprises a ligand La which has a structure represented by Formula C PNG media_image7.png 204 170 media_image7.png Greyscale Moon 2 teaches organic light emitting devices containing a metal compound having a Formula 1 PNG media_image8.png 166 308 media_image8.png Greyscale (Abstract). Moon 2 teaches that these compounds can improve the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light emitting device (Abstract). A particular compound taught by Moon 2 is compound 168 PNG media_image9.png 214 348 media_image9.png Greyscale ([0098]). This reads on the claimed Formula wherein ring A and ring B are each independently an aromatic ring having 6 carbon atoms; Ri represents a mono-substitution; Rii represents a non-substitution; Y represents O; X1 and X2 represent CRx; R and Rx are all hydrogen; Ri is unsubstituted alkyl having 3 carbon atoms; the compound is represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 14 and Formula 2-20 in claim 17 and ligand La3 in claim 20; the compound is of formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q in claim 21, wherein M is a metal with an atomic mass greater than 40, namely Ir as required by claim 22, m is 2, n is 1 and q is 0 and Lb is of the structure PNG media_image10.png 102 106 media_image10.png Greyscale wherein Ra and Rc are alkyl groups having 5 carbon atoms, namely Lb31 PNG media_image11.png 142 76 media_image11.png Greyscale in claim 23. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a dopant, such as that of the claimed Formula, because Lee teaches that Ir-based dopants are suitable dopants for use in the OLEDs and Moon 2 teaches that compounds within the scope of the claimed Formula provide improved efficiency and lifespan to the OLEDs that use them as dopants (Abstract). As per claim 15, while compound 168 does not contain at least one of X1 to X5 to be a nitrogen as claimed, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that X1 to X4 can be selected from CR1 or N ([0012]). Furthermore Moon 2 teaches compounds, such as compound 18 PNG media_image12.png 198 302 media_image12.png Greyscale , wherein the ring coordinated to the Ir-atom contains a second nitrogen atom. 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 modify a compound such as compound 168 to include a second nitrogen atom and arrive at the claimed compound. Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). As per claims 35 – 37, while compound 168 does not contain the additional substituents of claims 35 and 36 and does not read on any of the particularly claimed compounds in claim 37. However, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that the claimed positions can be substituted ([0022]). Moon 2 also teaches compound such as compound 174 PNG media_image13.png 202 342 media_image13.png Greyscale , which contains two additional methyl substituents as required by the claim. 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 modify compound 168 above to include two methyl substituents on the bottom phenyl ring and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. Similarly, the only difference between compound 174 above and claimed compound C79 PNG media_image14.png 150 224 media_image14.png Greyscale is the extra carbon atom in the alkyl group of compound 174. Both alkyl groups fall within the definition of R and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 174 of Moon 2 and arrive at claimed compound C79. Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). As per claim 26, Lee teaches: Wherein the device emits red light or white light ([0030]: “The compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the present invention is adopted as a material for… red phosphorescent host material.”) As per claim 27, Lee teaches: A display assembly, comprising the electroluminescent device ([0023]: “A full-color display panel with significantly improved performance and lifespan can be manufactured.”) Claims 1, 3 – 27, 30 and 32 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee 2 (US20220231228A1) in view of Moon 2 (US20220127288A1). As per claims 1, 3 – 25, 28, 30 and 32 – 37, Lee 2 teaches: An electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer contains at least a first compound ([0006]: “As a result of intensive research to solve the above technical problems, the present inventors found that the above objective can be achieved by an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; a light-emitting layer between the first electrode and the second electrode; and a hole transport zone between the first electrode and the light-emitting layer, wherein the hole transport zone comprises the compound represented by the following formula 1 and the light-emitting layer comprises the compound represented by the following formula 2.”) Wherein the first compound has a structure of H-L-E, wherein the H has a structure represented by Formula A-1 PNG media_image15.png 180 126 media_image15.png Greyscale (Lee 2 teaches an organic electroluminescent compound represented by formula 2 PNG media_image16.png 146 306 media_image16.png Greyscale ([0012]). A particular compound taught by Lee is compound C1-5 PNG media_image17.png 244 316 media_image17.png Greyscale ([0109]), which reads on the claimed Formula A-6 wherein Z1 to Z2 and Z6 to Z8 are CRz1, Zh1 to Zh8 are all CRzh where Rz1 and Rzh are all hydrogen; the compound is represented by H-1 in claim 5; L is a single bond as required by claim 11, namely group L-0 in claim 33; E has the structure represented by E-11 PNG media_image4.png 104 122 media_image4.png Greyscale , wherein RA represents a dual-substitution of an unsubstituted aryl having 6 carbon atoms; the group is represented by E-2 in claim 7 and E-19 PNG media_image5.png 100 114 media_image5.png Greyscale in claim 10. This compound is the same as compound 1-45 PNG media_image18.png 182 114 media_image18.png Greyscale in claim 12.) Lee 2 teaches that the organic electroluminescent compound of formula 2 may be comprised in the light emitting layer as a host material and that the light-emitting layer may further comprise a dopant (See Device Example 1-1 in [0132]). Lee 2 teaches that the dopant is preferably a metalated complex of iridium ([0118]). Lee 2 does not specifically teach: Wherein the organic layer contains a second compound, wherein the second compound is a metal complex, wherein the metal is selected from a metal with a relative atomic mass greater than 40, and the metal complex comprises a ligand La which has a structure represented by Formula C PNG media_image7.png 204 170 media_image7.png Greyscale Moon 2 teaches organic light emitting devices containing a metal compound having a Formula 1 PNG media_image8.png 166 308 media_image8.png Greyscale (Abstract). Moon 2 teaches that these compounds can improve the efficiency and lifespan of the organic light emitting device (Abstract). A particular compound taught by Moon 2 is compound 168 PNG media_image9.png 214 348 media_image9.png Greyscale ([0098]). This reads on the claimed Formula wherein ring A and ring B are each independently an aromatic ring having 6 carbon atoms; Ri represents a mono-substitution; Rii represents a non-substitution; Y represents O; X1 and X2 represent CRx; R and Rx are all hydrogen; Ri is unsubstituted alkyl having 3 carbon atoms; the compound is represented by Formula 2-1 in claim 14 and Formula 2-20 in claim 17 and ligand La3 in claim 20; the compound is of formula M(La)m(Lb)n(Lc)q in claim 21, wherein M is a metal with an atomic mass greater than 40, namely Ir as required by claim 22, m is 2, n is 1 and q is 0 and Lb is of the structure PNG media_image10.png 102 106 media_image10.png Greyscale wherein Ra and Rc are alkyl groups having 5 carbon atoms, namely Lb31 PNG media_image11.png 142 76 media_image11.png Greyscale in claim 23. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a dopant, such as that of the claimed Formula, because Lee 2 teaches that Ir-based dopants are suitable dopants for use in the OLEDs and Moon 2 teaches that compounds within the scope of the claimed Formula provide improved efficiency and lifespan to the OLEDs that use them as dopants (Abstract). As per claim 15, while compound 168 does not contain at least one of X1 to X5 to be a nitrogen as claimed, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that X1 to X4 can be selected from CR1 or N ([0012]). Furthermore Moon 2 teaches compounds, such as compound 18 PNG media_image12.png 198 302 media_image12.png Greyscale , wherein the ring coordinated to the Ir-atom contains a second nitrogen atom. 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 modify a compound such as compound 168 to include a second nitrogen atom and arrive at the claimed compound. Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). As per claims 35 – 37, while compound 168 does not contain the additional substituents of claims 35 and 36 and does not read on any of the particularly claimed compounds in claim 37. However, in the definitions for Formula 1, Moon 2 teaches that the claimed positions can be substituted ([0022]). Moon 2 also teaches compound such as compound 174 PNG media_image13.png 202 342 media_image13.png Greyscale , which contains two additional methyl substituents as required by the claim. 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 modify compound 168 above to include two methyl substituents on the bottom phenyl ring and arrive at a compound of the claimed invention. Similarly, the only difference between compound 174 above and claimed compound C79 PNG media_image14.png 150 224 media_image14.png Greyscale is the extra carbon atom in the alkyl group of compound 174. Both alkyl groups fall within the definition of R and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound 174 of Moon 2 and arrive at claimed compound C79. Moon 2 includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Moon 2 being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of improved efficiency and lifespan to OLEDs that contain the compounds them as dopants (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E). As per claim 26, Lee 2 teaches: Wherein the device emits red light or white light ([0117]: “The host materials according to the present disclosure may be used as a light-emitting material for a white organic light-emitting device.”) As per claim 27, Lee 2 teaches: A display assembly, comprising the electroluminescent device ([0043]: “A display system or a lighting system can be manufactured using the organic electroluminescent device.”) 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