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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2021-0128342, filed on 09/28/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 09/23/2025, hereafter “Wen”). An English translation of Wen is provided within this office action.
Regarding Claim 1, Wen teaches the organic light-emitting device of OLED-2 comprising a substrate, an anode (indium tin oxide, ITO), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer (barium), and a cathode (aluminum) [0275] – [0284]. In this case, the hole transport region is the hole injection layer and the hole transport layer, while the electron transport region is the electron injection layer. Note that since the layers are stacked, each layer including the cathode is disposed on the substrate. The hole transport layer comprises Polymer 2, which has a repeating unit that reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 1-1 (shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
206
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
225
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar11, Ar12, and Ar13 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
n11–n13 are each 1,
L11 is *-O-*,
R11 is represented by Formula 1-1, wherein:
R12 is a binding site to a neighboring atom in Formula 1,
R13 and R15 are each a hydrogen,
R14 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl).
Note that a hole transport region comprising a compound with a repeating unit represented by Formula 1 reads on Applicants’ claim as the second compound represented by Formula 2 and fifth compound represented by Formula 5 are optional.
Regarding Claim 2, Ar11–Ar13 are each a phenylene in Polymer 2.
Regarding Claim 3, OLED-2 reads on Applicants’ limitation as a second compound represented by Formula 2 (which includes Ar21 and Ar22) is not present. Therefore, Applicants’ limitation of further limiting an optional compound is satisfied.
Regarding Claim 4, Ar11–Ar13 are each represented by Formula 1A-3 in Polymer 2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
147
133
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
225
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, OLED-2 reads on Applicants’ limitation as a second compound represented by Formula 2 (which includes Ar21 and Ar22) is not present. Therefore, Applicants’ limitation of further limiting an optional compound is satisfied.
Regarding Claim 6, (L11)a11 is represented by Formula 1L in Polymer 2 (shown below), wherein n1L is 3 and Z1L is hydrogen.
PNG
media_image5.png
149
157
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
225
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, OLED-2 reads on Applicants’ limitation as a second compound represented by Formula 2 (which includes L21) is not present. Therefore, Applicants’ limitation of further limiting an optional compound is met.
Regarding Claim 8, R11 is the group represented by Formula 1-1 in Polymer 2.
Regarding Claim 9, R14 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl), R15 is a hydrogen, while R1a and R1b are not present in Polymer 2.
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 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A) as applied to claims 1–9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0157596 A1, hereafter “Kim ‘596”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Wen teaches the organic light-emitting device of OLED-2 comprising a substrate, an anode (indium tin oxide, ITO), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer (barium), and a cathode (aluminum) [0275] – [0284], wherein the hole transport layer comprises Polymer 2.
However, Wen does not teach that the electron transport region comprises a compound represented by Formula 3 of claim 10 and/or a compound represented by Formula 3-1 of claim 11 (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
80
193
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim ‘596 teaches a light emitting device including an electron auxiliary layer comprising a first nanoparticle represented by Chemical Formula 1 and a second nanoparticle including ZnO [0034]. Kim ‘596 further teaches Example 1 which include a Zn0.85Mg0.15O nanoparticles electron auxiliary layer and a ZnO nanoparticles electron auxiliary layer [0229]. Comparative Example 1 is the same as Example 1 except the Zn0.85Mg0.15O nanoparticles auxiliary layer is missing [0235]. Comparative Example 2 is the same as Example 1 except the ZnO nanoparticle auxiliary layer is missing [0236]. Kim ‘596 teaches Example 1 exhibits reduced leakage currents and improved efficiency compared to Comparative Examples 1 and 2 [0242].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the Zn0.85Mg0.15O nanoparticles electron auxiliary layer and the ZnO nanoparticles electron auxiliary layer taught by Kim ‘596 to the electron transport region of OLED-2 taught by Wen, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kim ‘596 and Wen according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light-emitting device with reduced leakage currents and improved efficiency, as taught by Kim ‘596. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 10, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, including zinc oxide nanoparticles in the electron transport region reads on Applicants’ Formula 3 (shown below), wherein M is Zn, p and q are each 1.
PNG
media_image7.png
103
161
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 11, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, including Zn0.85Mg0.15O nanoparticles in the electron transport region reads on Applicants’ Formula 3-1 (shown below), wherein M’ is Mg, while r is 0.15.
PNG
media_image8.png
94
147
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A) as applied to claims 1–9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0217964 A1, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 09/23/2025, hereafter “Kim ‘964”).
Regarding Claim 12–14, Wen teaches the organic light-emitting device of OLED-2 comprising a substrate, an anode (indium tin oxide, ITO), a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron injection layer (barium), and a cathode (aluminum) [0275] – [0284], wherein the hole transport layer comprises Polymer 2.
However, Wen does not teach two emission units which are stacked with a charge generation layer between the two emission units.
Kim ‘964 teaches an organic light-emitting device having a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and long lifespan comprising a first and second electrode, m emission units stacked between the two electrodes, and m-1 charge generation layers between the two emission units, wherein m is an integer of 2 or more [0005] – [0010]. The charge generation layer includes an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer comprising an inorganic material which may be a metalloid [0012]. Specifically, Kim ‘964 teaches Example 1 wherein the p-type charge generation layer comprises compound HT3 and Bi2Te3 [0425]. Kim ‘964 further teaches the organic light-emitting devices of present disclosure have a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and lifespan [0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic light-emitting diode taught by Wen as the emission units in the device taught by Kim ‘964, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Wen and Kim ‘964 according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light-emitting device with a low driving voltage, high efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Kim ‘964. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 12, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation of a substrate, a cathode, an anode facing the cathode, x emitting units arranged between the cathode and the anode, x-1 charge generation layers, wherein x is 2. The emitting units include an electron transport region, an emission layer, and a hole transport region comprising Polymer 2, which has a repeating unit that reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 1-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
251
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
206
184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
225
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar11, Ar12, and Ar13 are each a C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene),
n11–n13 are each 1,
L11 is *-O-*,
R11 is represented by Formula 1-1, wherein:
R12 is a binding site to a neighboring atom in Formula 1,
R13 and R15 are each a hydrogen,
R14 is a C1 alkyl group (methyl).
Note that a hole transport region comprising a compound with a repeating unit represented by Formula 1 reads on Applicants’ claim as the second compound represented by Formula 2 and fifth compound represented by Formula 5 are optional. Additionally, each layer of the organic light-emitting device is stacked on the substrate, so the cathode is disposed on the substrate.
Per Claim 13, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as x is 2.
Per Claim 14, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as the charge generation layer comprises Compound HT3 (shown below), which is a hole-transport material [0195].
PNG
media_image9.png
380
306
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (CN 109369891 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0217964 A1) as applied to claims 12–14 above, and further in view of Lederer et al. (US 2020/0032093 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Wen in view of Kim ‘964 teaches an organic light-emitting device comprising a substrate, a cathode, an anode facing the cathode, x emitting units arranged between the cathode and the anode, x-1 charge generation layers, wherein x is 2. The emitting units include an electron transport region, an emission layer, and a hole transport region comprising Polymer 2. Additionally, the charge generation layer comprises compound HT3 and Bi2Te3.
However, Wen in view of Kim ‘964 does not teach that the charge generation layer comprises a compound represented by Formula 4 (shown below).
PNG
media_image10.png
257
220
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Lederer teaches p-type dopants used as guest compounds in mixtures with host compounds commonly increase the conductivity of this compound in comparison to the neat compound [0138]. Leader teaches that p-type dopants may be used in charge generation layers to electrically connect two or more organic electronic devices with low or negligible electrical loss [0128]. Lederer further teaches the p-type dopant P25 [0156].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the p-type dopant from Bi2Te3, taught by Wen in view of Kim ‘964, to Dopant P25, taught by Lederer, in charge generation layer of the organic light-emitting device taught by Wen in view of Kim ‘964, as described above. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the conductivity of the layer, as taught by Lederer.
Per Claim 15, the organic light-emitting device, as described above, reads on Applicants’ limitation as the charge generation layer comprises Dopant P25 which reads on Applicants’ Formula 4 (shown below),
PNG
media_image10.png
257
220
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
327
262
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein:
E is boron (B),
R41–R44 are each a C6 carbocyclic group substituted with five R10a,
R10a is -F.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chua et al. (KR 101172526 B1, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 09/06/2022, hereafter “Chua”) teaches Compound XVI [0157] which is identical to Compound 2-1 of the instant specification [0166]. Additionally, it reads on Applicants’ Formula 2 of independent claim 1.
PNG
media_image12.png
162
270
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Yu et al. (Adv. Mater. 2012, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 09/06/2022, hereafter “Yu”) teaches Polymer PTC-U which appears to read on Applicants’ Formula 1 and Formula 1-1 of independent claim 1.
PNG
media_image13.png
371
267
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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 at (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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789