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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1, 14, 20, and 23 amended and claims 4 and 17 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-25 are pending.
The objection to claims 1 and 14 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. US-20140364625-A1 in view of Kwon et al. US-20220069237-A1 is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action are each updated to reflect the amended claim language (the rejection of claim 8 is now incorporated into the rejection of claims 1 and 14) and maintained.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 2-7 of the reply dated 04/06/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 4 and 5 that none of Ahn, Kwon, Jung, or Hatwar individually teaches each and every claim feature of independent claims 1 and 14. Specifically, the applicant argues that: Ahn does not disclose or render obvious both the second host represented by Formula 9 and the dopant represented by Formula 1; Kwon does not disclose or render obvious both the first host represented by Formula 7 and the second host represented by Formula 9; Jung does not disclose or render obvious the dopant represented by Formula 1 and the first host represented by Formula 7; and Hatwar does not disclose or render obvious the first host, the second host as well as the dopant
Examiner's response – The cited reference Ahn, Kwon, Jung, and Hatwar are not individually relied upon to teach each and every claim feature of independent claims 1 and 14, rather, as discussed in detail in the rejection of record, it would have been obvious to combine the cited references to arrive at the claimed device. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145 IV.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 4 that all of the specific hosts recited in paragraph [0061] of Ahn, cited in the rejection of record, do not meet the claimed Formula 9 as amended.
Examiner's response – As discussed in the updated rejection below (incorporating the rejection of claim 8 of the previous Office action) it would have been obvious to combine Ahn with the teaching of Jung to include a second host compound that meets the claimed Formula 9 and thereby arrive at the claimed device.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues bridging pages 4 to 5 that the compounds PH-1, PH-2, and PH-3 of Jung do not meet the claimed first host compound of Formula 7.
Examiner's response – As discussed in the updated rejection below (incorporating the rejection of claim 8 of the previous Office action), in the modified device of Ahn in view of Kwon and Jung, the compound of Ahn corresponds to the claimed first host of Formula 7 and the compound of Jung corresponds to the second host compound of Formula 9. While there are examples in Jung teaching the host of Jung with additional host compounds PH-1, PH-2, and PH-3, the teachings of Jung do not require that the other host in a two-host system be specifically PH-1, PH-2, and PH-3. Jung teaches generally that an organic light emitting device comprising the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 exhibits the beneficial properties of improved efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or improved lifetime characteristics of the organic light emitting device. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 5 that the teaching of Kwon do not render obvious the use of a dual host in the emitting layer and the host in Kwon differs from any of the hosts in Ahn and Jung.
Examiner's response – As discussed in the rejection of record, Kwon is not relied upon to teach the dual host and Kwon does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the combination with further hosts such as those in the teachings of Ahn and Jung and the prior art references do not expressly exclude their combination.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 5 that the structure of the dopant in Ahn differs from the dopant in Kwon.
Examiner's response – Ahn positively recites that the dopant is preferably a phosphorescent dopant, preferably selected from complex compounds of iridium, and even more preferably ortho-metallated iridium complex compounds. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123.
Kwon teaches the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1, which is an ortho-metallated iridium complex compound and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, Kwon teaches an organic light-emitting device including the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 exhibits excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity and therefore forming the dopant in the device of Ahn out of the Kwon's organometallic compound would yield the benefit of excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity, as described above.
Applicant's argument – The applicant bridges pages 5 to 6 that the applied art would not have contained sufficient guidance for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the specific selections as set forth in the Office Action with a reasonable expectation of success and there appears to be a lack of motivation to combine the teachings of the Ahn, with the specific teachings of Kwon, and Jung.
Examiner's response – In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues bridging pages 6 to 7 that even if the references had been combined in the manner set forth in the Office Action, it is not clear that a resulting OLED or an organic light emitting device comprising the OLED would have had beneficial luminous efficiency and luminous life span as well as low driving voltage.
Examiner's response – In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., beneficial luminous efficiency and luminous life span as well as low driving voltage) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2145 VI.
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 1-3, 5-8, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. US-20140364625-A1 (hereinafter "Ahn") in view of Kwon et al. US-20220069237-A1 (hereinafter "Kwon") and Jung et al. US-20180337348-A1 (hereinafter "Jung").
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8, and 24, Ahn teaches organic electroluminescent device comprising at least one organic layer between a first electrode and a second electrode (¶ [0046]), wherein the at least one organic layer comprises a light emitting layer (¶ [0047]), and wherein the light emitting layer comprises at least one dopant, an organic electroluminescent compound of a formula 1 as a first host material, and a second host material (¶ [0048]-[0049]). Ahn teaches examples of the organic electroluminescent device on a substrate (¶ [0102]). Ahn teaches the organic electroluminescent compounds have the beneficial properties of high luminous efficiency and good lifespan characteristics, and provide an organic electroluminescent device having long operating lifespan (¶ [0019]), and as host material provide improved current efficiency (¶ [0020]). Ahn teaches specific examples of the compound that meet the claimed Formula 7 in paragraph [0041] including compound C-22
PNG
media_image1.png
303
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 7), which also corresponds to the claimed compound GHH1.
Ahn does not specifically teach a device wherein the dopant includes an organometallic compound having a structure represented by the claimed Formula 1. However, Ahn teaches the dopant is preferably a phosphorescent dopant, preferably selected from complex compounds of iridium, and even more preferably ortho-metallated iridium complex compounds (¶ [0062]).
Kwon teaches an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1, an ortho-metallated iridium complex compound, for use as a dopant in the emission layer of an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0028]-[0029]). Kwon teaches an organic light-emitting device including the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 exhibits excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity (¶ [0147]). Kwon teaches specific examples of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 in paragraph [0145] including Compound 1
PNG
media_image2.png
315
303
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 45) and Compound 3
PNG
media_image3.png
259
235
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 45).
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 have modified the device of Ahn by forming the dopant out of the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1, as taught by Kwon. One would have been motivated to do so because Ahn teaches that the dopant is preferably an ortho-metallated iridium complex compound and Kwon teaches the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1, which is an ortho-metallated iridium complex compound. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Additionally, Kwon teaches an organic light-emitting device including the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 exhibits excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity and therefore forming the dopant in the device of Ahn out of the Kwon's organometallic compound would yield the benefit of excellent luminescence efficiency, lifespan, and color purity, as described above.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a specific examples of Kwon's organometallic compound, including Compound 1 or 3, because it would have been choosing from the list of compounds specifically disclosed by Kwon, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Ahn and possessing the beneficial properties taught by Kwon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Kwon's organometallic compound having the beneficial properties as described above taught by Kwon in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Ahn does not exemplify a device comprising wherein the second host meets the claimed Formula 9. However, Ahn teaches generally that the host material other than the organic electroluminescent compound can be from any of the known phosphorescent hosts (¶ [0050]).
Jung teaches a compound of a Chemical Formula 1 for use as a host material of a light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device (¶ [0018] and ¶ [0008]). Jung teaches that an organic light emitting device comprising the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 exhibits the beneficial properties of improved efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or improved lifetime characteristics of the organic light emitting device (¶ [0018]). Jung teaches examples of the host compound of a Chemical Formula 1 in paragraph [0087] including
PNG
media_image4.png
157
206
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 16).
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 form the second host in the device of Ahn out of Jung's host compound of Chemical Formula 1, based on the teaching of Jung. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the beneficial properties of improved efficiency, a low driving voltage and/or improved lifetime characteristics of the organic light emitting device, as taught by Jung.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select one of the compound in paragraph [0087] including the compound
PNG
media_image4.png
157
206
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, because it would have been choosing one from the list specifically exemplified compounds of Chemical Formula 1, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the second host in the light emitting layer of the device of Ahn and possessing the beneficial properties taught by Jung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Jung's host compound having the beneficial properties as described above taught by Jung in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
The modified device of Ahn in view of Kwon and Jung comprises a first host compound meeting the claimed Formula 7 and corresponding to the claimed compound GHH1, a second host compound meeting the claimed Formula 9 and corresponding to the claimed compound GEH3, and a dopant meeting the claimed Formula 1 and corresponding to the claimed compound 1. Therefore, the modified device meets claims 1-3, 5-8, and 24.
Claims 9-16, 18-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. US-20130126856-A1 (hereinafter "Ahn") in view of Kwon et al. US-20220069237-A1 (hereinafter "Kwon") and Jung et al. US-20180337348-A1 (hereinafter "Jung") as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hatwar et al. US-20100288362-A1 (hereinafter "Hatwar").
Regarding claims 9-16, 18-23, and 25, Ahn in view of Kwon and Jung teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Ahn in view of Kwon and Jung does not specifically teach a device wherein: the emissive layer includes a first emitting part disposed between the first and second electrodes and including a blue emitting material layer, a second emitting part disposed between the first emitting part and the second electrode and including at least one emitting material layer, and a first charge generation layer disposed between the first and second emitting parts; the at least one emitting material layer further includes a first layer disposed between the first charge generation layer and the second electrode, the first layer including a red emitting material layer, and a second layer disposed between the first layer and the second electrode, the second layer including the host and the dopant, wherein the at least one emitting material layer further includes a third layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer, and wherein the third layer includes a yellow green emitting material layer; and the emissive layer further includes a third emitting part disposed between the second emitting part and the second electrode and including a blue emitting material layer, and a second charge generation layer disposed between the second and third emitting parts.
However, Ahn teaches the organic layer may further comprise at least one more light-emitting layer, and a charge generating layer (¶ [0075]). Additionally, Kwon teaches an emission layer patterned into a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer and that due to a stacked structure including a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and/or a blue emission layer, the emission layer may emit white light (¶ [0218]).
Further, in the analogous art of OLEDs, Hatwar teaches an organic light-emitting device (see Figure 1 and ¶ [0098]) comprising a first electrode (“anode 110”), a second electrode (“cathode 170”), a plurality of light-emitting units in the number of m disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (“N EL units”) comprising at least one emission layer (¶ [0092]), and a plurality of charge generation layers in the number of m-1 disposed between two neighboring light-emitting units (“N-1 intermediate connector regions”) wherein m is an integer of 2 or more (“N is an integer greater than 1” – see ¶ [0098]). Hatwar suggests that many different energy transfer processes can occur inside the emission layers (EMLs) of the light-emitting units and that the layer may be fluorescent or phosphorescent or a combination of both (¶ [0092]). Hatwar also suggests that the colors of the emission layers may be selected so as to obtain the desired properties. For example, Hatwar suggests that a white OLED can be achieved by including blue light emitting layers in combination with red and green emitting layers (¶ [0100]-[0101]).
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 form a white OLED comprising the organic EL device of Ahn in view of Kwon and Jung such that it includes the stacked emission layer structure including light-emitting units of different colors and connector regions disclosed by Hatwar, based on the teaching of Hatwar, and to form each light-emitting unit with patterned into a stacked structure of a red emission layer, a green emission layer, and a blue emission layer, based on the teaching of Kwon. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the desired white light emission as taught by Hatwar and Kwon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Jatsch et al. US-20140225046-A1 teaches matrix material of an organic light emitting device of a formula (1)
PNG
media_image5.png
105
173
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0063] and ¶ [0007]); and Yokoyama et al. US-20130126856-A1 teaches compounds of a general formula (1)
PNG
media_image6.png
259
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
having an indenocarbazole ring structure used as a constituent material of the light emitting layer of an organic EL device (¶ [0055]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights