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 December 24, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of a species wherein ring A is formed in the reply filed on December 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3 and 5 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species directed to the formation of ring B, there being no allowable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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 – 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 29, 2023 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, 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 Wang (CN110790797A, using the provided machine translation).
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
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 modified compound reads on Formula 1-9 in claim 6 wherein R11 and R13 are a C5 alkyl group and R12 is a hydrogen. As per claim 10, the only difference between the modified compound above and claimed compound
PNG
media_image12.png
184
232
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is that the methyl group off the condensed ring in the Example compound of Wang is an isopropyl group in the claimed compound. However, in the definitions for R1, Wang teaches that the group may be any C1-C60 alkyl ([0012]), 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 methyl group with an isopropyl group and arrive at the claimed compound RD14.
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 (I) of Wang, 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 high efficiency and good stability ([0008]).
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 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 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 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 Cho (KR20210109436A, 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.
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 Wang (CN110790797A, using the provided machine translation).
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
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 modified compound reads on Formula 1-9 in claim 6 wherein R11 and R13 are a C5 alkyl group and R12 is a hydrogen. As per claim 10, the only difference between the modified compound above and claimed compound
PNG
media_image12.png
184
232
media_image12.png
Greyscale
is that the methyl group off the condensed ring in the Example compound of Wang is an isopropyl group in the claimed compound. However, in the definitions for R1, Wang teaches that the group may be any C1-C60 alkyl ([0012]), 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 methyl group with an isopropyl group and arrive at the claimed compound RD14.
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 (I) of Wang, 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 high efficiency and good stability ([0008]).
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
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