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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed January 30, 2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-25 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-3 and 14-16 have been amended.
Claims 26-28 have been added.
Claims 4-8 and 17-18 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 9-16, and 19-28 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that there is nothing that would have provided a reason or motivation for the ordinary skilled artisan to select the combination set forth be examiner, Examiner disagrees.
Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kwon teaches a device with only one host compound and Kwon teaches a dual host compound which provides high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a device with only one host material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dual host composition of Ahn in the emitting layer of the device of Kwon in order to achieve high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound, as taught by Ahn.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the host materials of Ahn differ too greatly from the host material of Kwon, and that the organometallic dopant of Kwon differs too greatly from the organometallic dopant of Ahn, Examiner disagrees.
The host compound of Kwon overlaps substantially with the second host compound of Ahn. For example, Examiner notes that the emission layer of the example devices of Kwon use host compound GH3 (paragraph 0292 and page 76), which basically comprises a biscarbazole compound wherein one carbazole is substituted at the 9-position with a triazine moiety.
Examiner also points to comparative Example 3-1 of Ahn (Table 2 on page 223), which comprises an emission layer with an analogous single host material, compound H2-25, which is a biscarbazole compound wherein one carbazole is substituted at the 9-position with a triazine moiety.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
570
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
An artisan having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the single host device of Kwon, which comprises a compound analogous to the second host compound of Ahn, would benefit from including both the first and second host compounds of Ahn in order to achieve high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound, as taught by Ahn. Such a modification produces the instant claimed light emitting diode composition.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Kwon, Ahn, and Shin, either taken alone or in combination no longer meet the requirements of the instant amended claims, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-16, and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 14, the claims contain the limitation that R42 is independently unsubstituted or phenyl-substituted phenyl.
The syntax of this limitation introduces uncertainty as to what the metes and bounds of R42 are. This limitation may be interpreted in at least two ways.
In the first interpretation, R42 may be selected as “unsubstituted”, wherein it represents a lone pair of electrons, or R42 may also be a “phenyl-substituted phenyl” group, wherein R42 is a biphenyl group.
In the second interpretation, R42 may be selected as a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl group, wherein the substituent of the phenyl group is another phenyl group, and forms a biphenyl group.
In continuing examination, R42 is being interpreted as being selected from a phenyl or biphenyl group. Support for this interpretation comes from the embodiments of the instant specification.
Claims 2-3, 9-13, 15-16, and 19-28 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2017/0117488 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kwon discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising an anode (a first electrode), a cathode (a second electrode) and an emissive layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0161) which comprises a compound (paragraph 0030) such as compound 1 (page 45) pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
512
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when LA has the structure of Formula 2, LB has the structure of Formula 5A, m is 1, n is 2, and m+n is 3.
In Formula 2, X1 and X2 are CR7, X3 to X5 are each CR8, X6 to X9 are each CR9, a is 0 and R1 through R5 are not present, b is 0 and R6 is not present, and R7 through R9 are each hydrogen.
In Formula 5A, f and g are 0, and R21 and R22 are not present.
However, while Kwon teaches that the emission layer may further comprise a host (paragraph 0156), all the example devices comprise a single host compound (paragraph 0292), and a dual host composition is not taught nor fairly suggested.
In analogous art, Ahn teaches an organic light electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer with a phosphorescent dopant and multi-component host compounds which result in high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound (abstract).
Ahn gives an example of the first host compound, which is H1-8 (page 7), pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
578
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant first host compound represented by Formula 7 when p and q are 7 and R43 and R44 are each a hydrogen atom, R41 is a phenyl group and R42 is a biphenyl group.
Ahn also gives an example of the second host compound, H2-112 (page 91), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
534
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant second host compound represented by Formula 9 when R51 and R52 are both phenyl, R53 has the structure of Formula 10A, Y1 through Y3 are each nitrogen atoms, and L is phenylene.
In Formula 10A, R62 and R63 are linked to form a methyl-substituted indenocarbazole moiety. All remaining R characters are hydrogen atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dual host composition of Ahn in the emitting layer of the device of Kwon in order to achieve high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound, as taught by Ahn.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and LA has the structure of Formula 4A or 4C when c is 0, as pictured and discussed above.
With respect to claim 24, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and Kwon teaches an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0294) which is patterned onto a glass substrate (paragraph 0290).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an organic light emitting device on a glass substrate comprising the diode of Kwon and Ahn as taught by Kwon.
With respect to claim 26, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and the organometallic compound is instant compound 1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 27, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and the first host is instant compound GHH2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 28, Kwon and Ahn teach the light-emitting diode of claim 1, and the second host is instant compound GEH2, as pictured above.
Claims 9-16, 19-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237 A1) and Ahn et al. (US 2017/0117488 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Kwon nor Ahn teach a second emitting layer separated from the first emitting layer by a charge generation layer.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a white LED device having a tandem structure in which there is a first emitting layer including a blue emitting layer, and a second emitting layer including a yellow-green emitting layer, which are vertically laminated with a charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers (paragraph 0007). Shin teaches that in order to obtain a white LED having long lifetime, an LED having a tandem structure with plural emitting units is widely used (paragraph 0006). Shin also teaches that use of a charge generation layer between emitting layers increases the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distributes charge to each emitting layer (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Examiner would like to note that as Kwon teaches a device comprising the compound may emit white light (paragraph 0218), this is interpreted to overlap in scope with Shin who teaches one blue light layer and one yellow-green layer which results in white light emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emitting layer composition of Kwong and Ahn as one of the emitting layers in a tandem device structure with plural emitting layers in order to obtain a white light emitting LED having long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a charge generation layer between emitting layers in order to increase the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distribute charge to each emitting layer, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 10, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 9, and Shin also teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer, a green emitting material layer, and a yellow-green emitting material layer.
Examiner notes that Kwon teaches the compounds typically emit in the 500-600 nm range, which makes them suitable for some green emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host and dopant of Kwon and Ahn in one of the layers, such as the green emitting layer of the second emitting material layer in the device of Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 11, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 10, and Shin teaches three sublayers in the second emitting material layer, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 12, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 9, and Shin teaches that the organic light emitting diode may further include a third emitting material layer and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting parts (paragraphs 0103-0104).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third emitting material layer and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 13, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 12, and Shin also teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer, a green emitting material layer, and a yellow-green emitting material layer.
Examiner notes that Kwon teaches the compounds typically emit in the 500-600 nm range, which makes them suitable for some green emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host and dopant of Kwon and Ahn in one of the layers, such as the green emitting layer of the second emitting material layer in the device of Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 14, Kwon discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising an anode (a first electrode), a cathode (a second electrode) and an emissive layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0161) which comprises a compound (paragraph 0030) such as compound 1 (page 45) pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
512
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when LA has the structure of Formula 2, LB has the structure of Formula 5A, m is 1, n is 2, and m+n is 3.
In Formula 2, X1 and X2 are CR7, X3 to X5 are each CR8, X6 to X9 are each CR9, a is 0 and R1 through R5 are not present, b is 0 and R6 is not present, and R7 through R9 are each hydrogen.
In Formula 5A, f and g are 0, and R21 and R22 are not present.
However, while Kwon teaches that the emission layer may further comprise a host (paragraph 0156), all the example devices comprise a single host compound (paragraph 0292), and a dual host composition is not taught nor fairly suggested.
In analogous art, Ahn teaches an organic light electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer with a phosphorescent dopant and multi-component host compounds which result in high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound (abstract).
Ahn gives an example of the first host compound, which is H1-8 (page 7), pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
578
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant first host compound represented by Formula 7 when p and q are 7 and R43 and R44 are each a hydrogen atom, R41 is a phenyl group and R42 is a biphenyl group.
Ahn also gives an example of the second host compound, H2-112 (page 91), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
534
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant second host compound represented by Formula 9 when R51 and R52 are both phenyl, R53 has the structure of Formula 10A, Y1 through Y3 are each nitrogen atoms, and L is phenylene.
In Formula 10A, R62 and R63 are linked to form a methyl-substituted indenocarbazole moiety. All remaining R characters are hydrogen atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dual host composition of Ahn in the emitting layer of the device of Kwon in order to achieve high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound, as taught by Ahn.
However, neither Kwon nor Ahn teach a second emitting part separated from the first emitting layer by a charge generation layer.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a white LED device having a tandem structure in which there is a first emitting layer including a blue emitting layer, and a second emitting layer including a yellow-green emitting layer, which are vertically laminated with a charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers (paragraph 0007). Shin teaches that in order to obtain a white LED having long lifetime, an LED having a tandem structure with plural emitting units is widely used (paragraph 0006). Shin also teaches that use of a charge generation layer between emitting layers increases the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distributes charge to each emitting layer (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Examiner would like to note that as Kwon teaches a device comprising the compound may emit white light (paragraph 0218), this is interpreted to overlap in scope with Shin who teaches one blue light layer and one yellow-green layer which results in white light emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emitting layer composition of Kwong and Ahn as one of the emitting layers in a tandem device structure with plural emitting layers in order to obtain a white light emitting LED having long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a charge generation layer between emitting layers in order to increase the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distribute charge to each emitting layer, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and LA has the structure of Formula 4A or 4C when c is 0, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 19, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and Shin also teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer, a green emitting material layer, and a yellow-green emitting material layer.
Examiner notes that Kwon teaches the compounds typically emit in the 500-600 nm range, which makes them suitable for some green emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host and dopant of Kwon and Ahn in one of the layers, such as the green emitting layer of the second emitting material layer in the device of Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 20, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 19, and the third layer is a yellow-green emitting material layer, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 21, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and Shin also teaches that the emissive layer may further comprising a third emitting layer between the second emitting layer and the second electrode including a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers, and the third emitting material layer may be a blue emitting material layer (paragraphs 0103-0104).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third, blue emitting material layer and a second charge generation layer between the second emitting layer and the second electrode, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 22, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 21, and Shin also teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer, a green emitting material layer, and a yellow-green emitting material layer.
Examiner notes that Kwon teaches the compounds typically emit in the 500-600 nm range, which makes them suitable for some green emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host and dopant of Kwon and Ahn in one of the layers, such as the green emitting layer of the second emitting material layer in the device of Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 23, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 22, and the third sublayer of the second emitting material layer emits yellow-green light, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 25, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and Kwon teaches an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0294) which is patterned onto a glass substrate (paragraph 0290).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an organic light emitting device on a glass substrate comprising the diode of Kwon, Ahn, and Shin, as taught by Kwon.
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 RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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, 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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights