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 March 11, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification, filed March 11, 2026, is hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 3, 13, 15, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the specification, filed March 11, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the objection to the specification as set forth in the office action filed December 19, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 11, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the office action filed December 19, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 19, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 20 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 joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed December 19, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 19, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lee 2 as set forth in the office action filed December 19, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 19, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as set forth in the office action filed December 19, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Lee’s display, the green unit’s emission is carefully integrated with quantum dot converters and filters to achieve target spectra across sub-pixels and that broadening the green spectrum with two dopants would undermine the color-conversion/filtering strategy by increasing spectral width and residual blue/green leakage, contrary to Lee’s design goals. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The goal of Lee 2 is to improve the efficiency of light emission, which is not at odds with the goal of Lee. Furthermore, Lee 2 specifically restricts the difference in wavelengths between the dopants to less than 50 nm, meaning there would not necessarily be a significant increase in spectral width by incorporating the second dopant of Lee 2 in the device of Lee.
Applicant argues that Lee 2 only teaches compounds of Ir(ppy)3, which is currently excluded from the claimed invention and Iridium-based complexes with a O^O ligand, which is also outside the scope of the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0030], Lee 2 clearly teaches that the invention is not limited to the listed Ir-based materials.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed March 11, 2026 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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 – 11, 13 – 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20180374409A1) in view of Lee 2 (US20040178720A1).
As per claims 1, 2, 9 – 11, 13 – 16, 19 and 20 Lee teaches:
A light emitting device comprising an organic light-emitting device (OLED) substrate comprising a structure wherein at least one blue emission unit and at least one green emission unit are stacked, and wherein the OLED substrate emits a blue light and a green light, and a color control unit located in a path of light emitting from the OLED substrate, wherein the color control unit controls a color of light emitted from the OLED substrate, and an electronic apparatus comprising the light emitting device (Abstract: “A display apparatus including an OLED (organic light-emitting device) substrate having a structure in which at least one blue light-emitting unit and at least one green light-emitting unit are stacked, wherein the OLED substrate generates a mixed light of a blue light and a green light; and a color controller provided on the OLED substrate to adjust color of a light generated from the OLED substrate.”)
Lee teaches that the green emission layer comprises a phosphorescent light-emitting material ([0189]) and that the green-light emitting unit emits green light having a peak wavelength range of 510 nm to 540 nm ([0080]). Lee teaches representative phosphorescent dopants that include Ir-based dopants, such as PD8 – PD25 ([0114]) and Pt-based dopants, such as compounds 1-1 to 1-88 ([0188]). Lee does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the at least one green emission unit comprises a first compound and a second compound, the first compound and the second compound are different from each other, the first compound emits first light having a first spectrum, and λP(1) is a first emission peak wavelength of the first spectrum, as evaluated from a first photoluminescence spectrum measured from a first film comprising the first compound, the second compound emits second light having a second spectrum, and λP(2) is a second emission peak wavelength of the second spectrum, as evaluated from a second photoluminescence spectrum measured from a second film comprising the second compound, wherein the green emission unit comprises a layer comprising a mixture of the first compound and the second compound
An absolute value of the difference between λP(1) and λP(2) is from 0 nm to about 30 nm
λP(1) is about 500 to 520 nm and λP(2) is about 510 nm to about 540 nm
Lee 2 teaches an organic electroluminescent device with improved efficiency by the inclusion of two phosphorescent dopants, wherein each dopant is either iridium or platinum (Abstract). Lee 2 teaches that the first phosphorescent dopant is used to transfer energy received from the host to the second phosphorescent dopant ([0024]). Lee 2 teaches that the wavelength difference between the first and second phosphorescent dopants is preferably 50 nm or less ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the green emission layer of Lee with two phosphorescent dopants, such as a combination of the dopants taught by Lee in ([0114] and [0188]) wherein the difference in the luminescence peak between the first and second compounds is within 30 nm as claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably improve the efficiency of the dopants as taught by Lee 2 (Abstract). Since there is one emission layer in the green emitting unit of Lee, the combination of compounds would be mixed in a single layer as required by claim 2. As Lee 2 teaches that the first phosphorescent dopant transfers energy received from the host to the second phosphorescent dopant ([0024]), the first phosphorescent dopant is interpreted as a sensitizer as required by claim 10. The two compounds are phosphorescent compounds as required by claim 11. Because the green emission spectrum taught by Lee is about 510 to 540, it is reasonable to assume that each of the dopants would emit in the claimed range of claim 10. Because Lee 2 teaches that the combination of dopants can include Pt and Ir-based compounds, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a combination of a Pt-based compound and an Ir-based compound as required by Condition 1 of claim 1 or to select a combination of two Ir-based compounds as required by Condition 2 of claim 1. Many of the organometallic compounds taught by Lee meet the structural requirements of claim 19, i.e. the platinum compound comprising a chemical bond between the Pt atom and a carbon of atom of the ligand and a chemical bond between the Pt atom and an oxygen atom of the ligand, and a Ir-based compound comprising bidentate ligands bonded to the iridium atom via two nitrogen atoms, via a nitrogen atom and a carbon atom or via two carbon atoms. As the two iridium-based compounds are different, it is reasonable to assume they will emit at slightly different wavelengths and it is the examiner’s position that Ir1 and Ir2 can be defined to meet the claimed Formula 1 of claims 15 and 16.
As per claim 3, Lee teaches:
Wherein the OLED substrate comprises a tandem structure ([0021]: “The OLED substrate may include a tandem structure.”)
As per claims 4 and 5, Lee teaches:
Wherein a number of the at least one blue emission units is equal to or greater than a number of the at least one green emission units and the ratio of the number of the at least one blue emission units to the number of the at least one green emission units is about 1:1 to 10:1 (The device is described as having one blue light-emitting unit and one green light-emitting unit (Abstract). Therefore, there are an equal number of blue emission units and green emission units and the ratio is 1:1.)
As per claims 6 – 8, Lee teaches:
Wherein the color control unit comprises a first color control element for green conversion, comprising a first quantum dot, a second color control element for red conversion, comprising a second quantum dot, and a third color control element for blue conversion, wherein the color control unit further comprises a first color filter located on the first color control element and a second color filter located on the second color control element (Abstract: “The color controller includes a first color control element having a plurality of first quantum dots for green conversion; a second color control element having plurality of second quantum dots for red conversion; a third color control element for presenting a blue color; a first color filter provided on the first color control element; and a second color filter provided on the second color control element.”)
As per claims 13 and 14, the prior art combination is silent with respect to the dipole moment of the Pt and Ir-based phosphorescent dopants. However, the compounds taught by the prior art combination are the same as some of the compounds taught in the instant specification. Therefore, the property of dipole moment is considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art combination (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20180374409A1) in view of Lee 2 (US20040178720A1) as applied to claims 1 – 11, 13 – 16, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Kanno (US20050074630A1).
As per claims 17 and 18, the prior art combination teaches that two iridium-based phosphorescent dopants may be used in a green emitting layer. The prior art combination does not specifically teach:
Wherein the light emitting device satisfies Equation 5 |HOMO(Ir1) – HOMO(Ir2)| is about 0.03 – 0.3 eV
Kanno teaches OLEDs with multiple dopants (Abstract), as shown in the band diagram in Fig. 4 and described in [0103 – 0105]. Kanno teaches that the difference in the HOMO level of the assistant dopant the dopant is less than or equal to 0.4 eV ([0105]) and that this relationship facilitates the transfer of holes and electrons and increases the intensity of the light ([0106]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select two iridium-based compounds with the claimed HOMO level relationship motivated by the desire to predictably facilitate hole and electron transfer and improve efficiency as taught by Kanno ([0051]).
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
Prosecution Insights