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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on October 7, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on November 18, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of a compound represented by Formula 1-1 wherein ring (a) with X3 – X5, Y1 and A is formed in the reply filed on November 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 – 9 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 23 and 24 have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 9, 11, 12, and 14 – 24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on May 7, 2025 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 18 refers to “a fourth compound represented by Formula 1-1.” As there is no Formula 1-1 in claim 1, the definition for the fourth compound is unclear and this renders the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as allowing the fourth compound to be any compound, including compounds of Formula 1-2.
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 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, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14 – 16, 21, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20210056940, using the provided machine translation) in view of Wang (CN110790797A, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 14 – 16, Kim teaches:
An organic light emitting diode comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and a first emitting part including a first red emitting material layer and positioned between the first and second electrodes ([0009 – 0011]: “The present invention provides the following organic light emitting device: including an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, the light emitting layer comprises a compound represented by formula (1) and a compound represented by formula (2).” In the Tables, Kim shows that the resulting devices emit red light.)
Wherein the first red emitting material layer includes a compound represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image1.png
230
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches compounds of Formula (2)
PNG
media_image2.png
262
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0020]). A particular compound taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image3.png
122
146
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, on page 34, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein each of X and Y is selected from a substituted C6 aryl group; a1 is 0 so that R4 does not exist; L1 is selected from the group consisting of an unsubstituted C6 arylene group; a2 is 1. This compound is represented by Formula 2-3 in claim 12, wherein Y is an unsubstituted biphenyl group.)
Wherein the first red emitting material layer includes a compound represented by Formula 3-1
PNG
media_image4.png
308
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Kim teaches compound of Formula 1
PNG
media_image5.png
248
460
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0011]). A particular compound taught by Kim is
PNG
media_image6.png
168
132
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on Page 26. This reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is an oxygen atom; Q is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group and Z is an unsubstituted C10 aryl group; L2 is an unsubstituted C10 aryl group and b is 1. This compound reads on Formula 3-2 of claim 14 and Formula 3-3 of claim 15. This compound is the same as compound REH-9
PNG
media_image7.png
216
160
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 16.)
Kim teaches that the dopant material is not particularly limited and that it may include metal complexes ([0188 – 0189]). In the Examples, Kim teaches devices made with red-emitting Ir-based dopants ([0636]). Kim does not teach:
Wherein the red emitting material layer includes a compound represented by Formula 1-2
PNG
media_image8.png
248
402
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Wang teaches red-emitting Ir-based dopants of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image9.png
294
500
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0010]). Wang teaches that these compounds provide high efficiency and good stability ([0008]). A particular compound taught by Wang is compound 1-5
PNG
media_image10.png
148
248
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir; R is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group; X21 to X27 are CR1; Y3 is O; two R1 groups are unsubstituted C1 alkyl groups and the remaining R1 groups are hydrogen; m is an integer of 2 and n is an integer of 1. As per claims 4 and 6 , compound 1-5 above does not teach a further fused ring. However, in compound 1-52,
PNG
media_image11.png
190
256
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, Wang teaches compounds where instead of two methyl substitutions, the bottom ring contains a fused phenyl ring. 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 replace the bottom two methyl substitutions of compound 1-5 with a fused phenyl ring and arrive at a compound represented by Formula 1-5 in claim 4. With the fused ring, the compound reads on Formula 1-9 in claim 6 wherein R11 and R13 are a C5 alkyl group and R12 is a hydrogen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any Ir-based red dopant, such as the dopant taught by Wang, because Kim teaches that the combination of host materials are suitable for Ir-based red-emitting dopants and Wang teaches specific red-emitting dopants that provide high efficiency and good stability ([0008]).
As per claim 11, the compound of Kim above does not teach the claimed R4 group as shown in Formula 2-2. However, in the definition for R, Kim teaches that the R group can be an aryl group and Kim specifically teaches compounds, such as
PNG
media_image12.png
118
150
media_image12.png
Greyscale
on page 44 which contain an unsubstituted phenyl group in the claimed R4 position. 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 the compound of Kim above, to include an unsubstituted phenyl group in the claimed R4 position and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula.
As per claim 21, Kim teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a substrate and the organic light emitting diode positioned on or over the substrate ([0029]: “FIG. 1 shows an example of an organic light-emitting device comprising a substrate 1, an anode 2, a light-emitting layer 3, and a cathode 4.”)
As per claim 22, Kim teaches:
Wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic light emitting display device or an organic light emitting illumination device (Abstract: “The present invention provides an organic light emitting device.”)
As per claim 24, Kim does not specifically teach the claimed compound. However, Kim teaches
PNG
media_image13.png
116
168
media_image13.png
Greyscale
on page 36, which contains a biphenyl group instead of the terphenyl group of RHH-5. However, compound
PNG
media_image14.png
108
160
media_image14.png
Greyscale
on page 35 teaches a terphenyl group in the same position as the biphenyl group. 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 the compound above to replace the biphenyl group with the terphenyl group and arrive at the claimed compound.
Claims 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20210056940, using the provided machine translation) in view of Wang (CN110790797A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14 – 16, 21, 22 and 24 above, and further in view of Lai (Lai, Po-Ni et al. “Highly Efficient Red-Emitting Bis-Cyclometalated Iridium Complexes.” Journal of the American Chemcial Society. 2018 (140): 10198-10207.)
As per claims 7, 8 and 9, the modified Ir-based red dopant of the prior art compound teaches an acac ancillary ligand. The dopant does not teach or suggest the ancillary ligands of claims 7 – 9.
Lai teaches iridium complexes that emit in the red-light spectrum (Abstract). Lai teaches that by incorporating acNac, NacNac, and dipba ancillary ligands
PNG
media_image15.png
66
300
media_image15.png
Greyscale
, the quantum yields can be improved (Abstract). Table 3 shows a comparison of acac based ligands with acNac, NacNac, and dipba for two different Ir-based compounds. Lai shows that for acNac, ligands, the quantum yields are significantly improved as compared to acac ligands and that for NacNac, and dipba ligands, the improvement in quantum yields is not nearly as high, but the emission maxima is in the deep red region and the quantum yields are very high for such a high wavelength region (Page 10203, Right Column, Paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the acac ligand of the prior art combination with the ancillary ligands claimed in claims 7 – 9, motivated by a desire to improve quantum yields and/or to produce deep red emitting compounds with good quantum yields as taught by Lai (Page 10203, Right Column, Paragraph 2).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20210056940, using the provided machine translation) in view of Wang (CN110790797A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14 – 16, 21, 22 and 24 above, and further in view of Yamae (US20160064682A1).
As per claims 17 and 18, the prior art combination does not teach:
A second emitting part includes a second red emitting layer and positioned between the first emitting part and the second electrode, and a first charge generation layer positioned between the first and second emitting parts
Wherein the second emitting material layer includes a fourth compound represented by Formula 1-1, a fifth compound represented by Formula 2-1 and a sixth compound represented by Formula 3-1
Yamae teaches an organic electroluminescent element including multiple light-emitting units (Abstract). A charge generation layer is provided between adjoining light emitting units ([0027]). Yamae teaches that the light emitting units may include both a first and second red emitting unit and that by using the same light emitting materials in both emitting layers, an increase in color rendering property can be achieved ([0123]).
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 OLED of the prior art combination in a stacked OLED with a second emitting unit including a red emitting material layer wherein the second red emitting material layer contains the same composition as the first red emitting layer, and a charge generation layer is provided between the emitting units as claimed because Yamae demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and Yamae teaches that by using the same light emitting material in multiple emitting units, an increase in color rendering property can be achieved ([0123]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20210056940, using the provided machine translation) in view of Wang (CN110790797A, using the provided machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14 – 16, 21, 22 and 24 above, and further in view of Shin (US20180166647A1).
As per claims 19 and 20, the prior art combination does not teach:
A second emitting part including a first blue emitting material layer and positioned between the first electrode and the first emitting part, and a second charge generation layer positioned between the first and second emitting parts
Wherein the first emitting part further includes a green emitting material layer positioned between the red emitting material layer and the second charge generation layer
Shin teaches and OLED structure with a first emitting unit and a second emitting unit and a charge generation layer disposed between the first emitting unit and the second emitting unit in Figure 1 as described in ([0056]). Shin teaches that the first emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer and a green emitting material layer ([0066]). Shin teaches that the second emitting unit may include a blue emitting material layer ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the OLED of the prior art combination in a stacked OLED with a second emitting unit include a blue emitting material layer and to include a first emitting part with a green emitting material layer positioned between the red emitting material layer and the second charge generation layer as claimed because Shin demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 23, the claim requires one of two particular compounds as the first compound. The closest subject matter is considered to be Wang (CN110790797A, using the provided machine translation). While Wang teaches fused polycyclic organometallic compounds similar to those in claim 23, Wang does not allow for a C-(CH3)2 atom in the claimed Y3 position, as required by the compounds in claim 23.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20230144101A1 teaches Ir-based compounds that could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
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