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 April 27, 2026.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 – 9 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 23 has been added.
Claims 3 and 5 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species directed to the formation of ring B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the response filed December 24, 2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 – 23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed April 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12 – 16, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Wang as set forth in the office action filed January 27, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 7 – 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Wang and further in view of Lai as set forth in the office action filed January 27, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Wang and further in view of Yamae as set forth in the office action filed January 27, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Wang and further in view of Shin as set forth in the office action filed January 27, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 27, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10 – 12, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wang as set forth in the office action filed January 27, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 23 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, which has been amended to remove O and S as options for variable Y2. However, several of the compounds in claim 10 still contain an O in the compound, such as compounds RD13 and RD14. Therefore, claim 10 is seen as failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12 – 16, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR20210109436A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Zhang (US20230144101A1).
As per claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13 and 16, Cho 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 (Page 28, Paragraph 3: “The organic electroluminescent device according to the present application has the first electrode; second electrode and the organic layer interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode.” On page 40, 3rd paragraph, Cho teaches that the device is a red emitting device.)
Wherein the first red emitting material layer includes a compound represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image1.png
296
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Cho teaches that the emission layer contains a plurality of host materials including a compound of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image2.png
216
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Page 3, Paragraph 5). A particular compound taught by Cho as representative of Chemical Formula 1 is
PNG
media_image3.png
152
120
media_image3.png
Greyscale
on page 11. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X12 is a N atom and X13 is an oxygen atom; R4 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, R5 and R6 are both unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl groups; a is 0 so that L does not exist.)
Wherein the first red emitting material layer includes a compound represented by Formula 3-1
PNG
media_image4.png
276
202
media_image4.png
Greyscale
( Cho teaches that the emission layer contains a plurality of host materials including a compound of Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image5.png
102
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Page 3, Paragraph 5) A particular compound within Chemical Formula 2 that Cho teaches is compound C-218
PNG
media_image6.png
150
100
media_image6.png
Greyscale
on page 21. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein each of Y and Z is selected from an unsubstituted C6 aryl group; Z is selected from an unsubstituted C12 heteroaryl group; L2 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group and b is 1; c is 0 so that L3 does not exist. This compound reads on Formula 3-2 in claim 12 wherein X14 is O and Formula 3-3 in claim 13. This compound is the same as compound REH-1
PNG
media_image7.png
172
116
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in claim 16.)
Cho teaches that the dopant material is not particularly limited and that it may include metal complexes (Page 29, Paragraph 1). Cho teaches that the device is a red emitting device (page 40, Paragraph 3). Cho 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
Zhang teaches red-emitting Ir-based dopants of Formula 2
PNG
media_image9.png
176
254
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0090] & [0293]). Zhang teaches that these compounds provide lowered driving voltage, improved device efficiency and increased lifetimes (Abstract). A particular compound taught by Zhang is compound 81
PNG
media_image10.png
180
228
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0320]), which does not contain an alkyl group in the claimed R position. However, Zhang teaches compounds such as compound 264
PNG
media_image11.png
150
234
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which contains an isopropyl group in the claimed 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 similarly substitute an isopropyl group on compound 81. Furthermore, while the compounds teach an O in the position corresponding to Y3, which is now outside the definition of Y3, in the definition for Y in Formula 2 of Zhang, Y is defined to include NRy. Therefore, it also 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 oxygen atom in compound 81 with N-phenyl group. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir; R is an unsubstituted C3 alkyl group; X21 to X27 are CR1; Y3 is NRa wherein Ra is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic group, as required by claim 23; all R1 groups are hydrogen; m is an integer of 2 and n is an integer of 1. The compound reads on Formula 1-4 in claim 4, and Formula 1-8 in claim 6. This compound is the same as compound RD9
PNG
media_image12.png
174
226
media_image12.png
Greyscale
in claim 10.
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 dopants of Formula 2 of Zhang, because Cho teaches that the combination of host materials are suitable for Ir-based red-emitting dopants and Wang teaches specific red-emitting dopants that provide lowered driving voltage, improved device efficiency and increased lifetimes (Abstract).
As per claim 14, another example of a compound taught by Cho within Chemical Formula 2 is compound C-241
PNG
media_image13.png
158
118
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula 3-4 wherein Y, Z, L2 and L3 are all selected from phenylene and b and c is 1.
As per claim 15, in the definitions for Formula 2 in Cho, Ar2 is selected from Formula 3
PNG
media_image14.png
168
214
media_image14.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y is O, S, N-* or NR21 (Page 10, Paragraphs 1 – 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the oxygen atom in C-218 with a N-* bond to create a carbazole group wherein the nitrogen atom is directly linked to the phenylene group and the compound reads on Formula 3-5.
Cho includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Cho 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 high efficiency and improved lifetime (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 21, Cho teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a substrate and the organic light emitting diode positioned on or over the substrate (In the device preparation examples provided on page 40, paragraph 4, Cho teaches that the ITO anode was put onto a glass substrate.)
As per claim 22, Cho teaches:
Wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic light emitting display device or an organic light emitting illumination device (On Page 36, Paragraph 7, Cho teaches that the OLED can be used in a display device.)
Claims 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR20210109436A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Zhang (US20230144101A1) 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 Chemical 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 Cho (KR20210109436A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Zhang (US20230144101A1) 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 Cho (KR20210109436A, using the provided machine translation) in view of Zhang (US20230144101A1) 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10 – 12, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210257556A1) in view of Zhang (US20230144101A1).
As per claims 1, 4, 6, 10, and 12, Lee 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 ([0056]: “According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, the organic electroluminescent device comprises an anode, a cathode, and at least one light-emitting layer between the anode and the cathode, and the light-emitting layer(s) comprises a compound(s) represented by formula 1, and a compound(s) represented by formula 2.” Table 1 of Lee shows that the devices emit red light.)
Wherein the first red emitting material layer includes a compound represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image1.png
296
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches that the emission layer contains a plurality of host materials including a compound of Formula 1
PNG
media_image16.png
208
268
media_image16.png
Greyscale
([0005]). A particular compound taught by Lee as representative of Formula 1 is
PNG
media_image17.png
312
352
media_image17.png
Greyscale
([0048]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X12 is a nitrogen atom and X13 is an oxygen atom; R4 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, R5 is a unsubstituted C6 aryl group, R6 is a substituted C6 aryl group; a is 1 and L is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group. This compound is the same as compound RHH-8 in claim 11
PNG
media_image18.png
192
130
media_image18.png
Greyscale
.)
Wherein the first red emitting material layer includes a compound represented by Formula 3-2
PNG
media_image4.png
276
202
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches that the emission layer contains a plurality of host materials including a compound of Formula 2
PNG
media_image19.png
152
270
media_image19.png
Greyscale
([0010 – 0013]) A particular compound within formula 2 that Lee teaches is compound H2-29
PNG
media_image20.png
282
320
media_image20.png
Greyscale
([0049]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Y is a C6 aryl group, Z is a C18 aryl group; b is 0; c is 0 so that L2 and L3 does not exist; Z is a C12 heteroaryl group. This compound reads on Formula 3-2 in claim 12 wherein X14 is O.)
Lee teaches that the dopant material is not particularly limited and that it may include metal complexes ([0061]). Lee teaches that the device is a red emitting device (Table 1). Lee 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
Zhang teaches red-emitting Ir-based dopants of Formula 2
PNG
media_image9.png
176
254
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0090] & [0293]). Zhang teaches that these compounds provide lowered driving voltage, improved device efficiency and increased lifetimes (Abstract). A particular compound taught by Zhang is compound 81
PNG
media_image10.png
180
228
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0320]), which does not contain an alkyl group in the claimed R position. However, Zhang teaches compounds such as compound 264
PNG
media_image11.png
150
234
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, which contains an isopropyl group in the claimed 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 similarly substitute an isopropyl group on compound 81. Furthermore, while the compounds teach an O in the position corresponding to Y3, which is now outside the definition of Y3, in the definition for Y in Formula 2 of Zhang, Y is defined to include NRy. Therefore, it also 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 oxygen atom in compound 81 with N-phenyl group. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir; R is an unsubstituted C3 alkyl group; X21 to X27 are CR1; Y3 is NRa wherein Ra is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic group, as required by claim 23; all R1 groups are hydrogen; m is an integer of 2 and n is an integer of 1. The compound reads on Formula 1-4 in claim 4, and Formula 1-8 in claim 6. This compound is the same as compound RD9
PNG
media_image12.png
174
226
media_image12.png
Greyscale
in claim 10.
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 dopants of Formula 2 of Zhang, because Lee teaches that the combination of host materials are suitable for Ir-based red-emitting dopants and Wang teaches specific red-emitting dopants that provide lowered driving voltage, improved device efficiency and increased lifetimes (Abstract).
As per claim 21, Lee teaches:
An organic light emitting device comprising a substrate and the organic light emitting diode positioned on or over the substrate (In the device preparation examples described in [0155], Lee teaches that the ITO anode was put onto a glass substrate.)
As per claim 22, Lee teaches:
Wherein the organic light emitting device is an organic light emitting display device or an organic light emitting illumination device ([0073]: “In addition, it is possible to manufacture a display system or a lighting system by using the organic electroluminescent device of the present disclosure.”)
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