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
In the response filed 03/10/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the objection to the specification is withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-25 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-25 were originally filed.
No claims have been added.
Claims 4 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-25 remain are pending in the application and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2017/0077423 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
Specifically, Applicant asserts that Ahn’s compound H1-89, which meets the requirements of instant Formula 7, does not meet the requirements of instant Formula 7 because the amendments do not include this limitation. However, Formula 7 still comprises the limitation that R41 can be a substituted C12 heteroaryl and R45 can be a C6 aryl. Thus, the compound of Ahn still meets the requirements of instant Formula 7.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ahn teaches an organic light electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer with a phosphorescent dopant and multi-component host compounds which result in high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound (abstract), and it would have been obvious to use the dual host composition of Ahn in place of the one host composition of Kwon.
Examiner notes that in paragraph [0385] of the instant specification, Applicant claims the combination of organometallic compound and dual host composition results in improved external quantum efficiency and lifespan, which is predicted by Ahn
While Applicant also notes reduced driving voltage as a result of the claimed combination, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
However, Applicants elimination of compound GHH6 from claim 7 has caused a reinterpretation of the prior art, which is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
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 Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2017/0077423 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kwon discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising an anode (a first electrode), a cathode (a second electrode) and an emissive layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0161) which comprises a compound (paragraph 0030) such as compound 1 (page 45) pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when LA has the structure of Formula 2, LB has the structure of Formula 5A, m is 1, n is 2, and m+n is 3.
In Formula 2, X1 and X2 are CR7, X3 to X5 are each CR8, X6 to X9 are each CR9, a is 0 and R1 through R5 are not present, b is 0 and R6 is not present, and R7 through R9 are each hydrogen.
In Formula 5A, f and g are 0, and R21 and R22 are not present.
However, while Kwon teaches that the emission layer may further comprise a host (paragraph 0156), all the example devices comprise a single host compound (paragraph 0292), and a dual host composition is not taught nor fairly suggested.
In analogous art, Ahn teaches an organic light electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer with a phosphorescent dopant and multi-component host compounds which result in high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound (abstract).
Ahn gives an example of the first host compound, which is H1-89 (page 24), pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
506
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant first host compound represented by Formula 7 when X is CR43R44, Z1 to Z4 are each CR45, R41 is a phenyl-substituted C12 heteroaryl (carbazolyl), R42 is not present, R43 and R44 are each a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, three of R45 are a hydrogen atom and the R45 at Z3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) group, L1 and L2 are each a single bond, and p is 0.
Ahn also gives an example of the second host compound, which is H2-112 (page 49), pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
506
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant second host compound represented by Formula 9 when R51 and R52 are a C6 aryl (phenyl), and R53 has the structure of Formula 10A, Y1 through Y3 are each nitrogen atoms, and L is a C6 arylene (m-phenylene).
In Formula 10A, R62 and R63 are linked to form a dimethyl-substituted indenocarbazole moiety, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dual host composition of Ahn in the emitting layer of the device of Kwon in order to achieve high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound, as taught by Ahn.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and LA has the structure of Formula 4A or 4C when c is 0, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 5, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and X1 and X2 are CR7, X3 to X5 are each CR8, X6 to X9 are each CR9, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and the organometallic compound is identical to instant compound 1, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
The first host compound of Ahn, Compound H1-89, is derived from Ahn formula 1 (paragraph 0009), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
514
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ahn also teaches that X9 through X11 are a hydrogen atom (paragraph 0012, line 1) so that the indenocarbazole moiety is unsubstituted (e.g., H1-90, HI-91, H-99).
Such a modification produces instant compound GHH1.
Ahn includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Ahn being a lack of the aforementioned unsubstituted indenocarbazole being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, 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 an unsubstituted analogue of compound H1-89 and arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a multi-component host composition comprising a specific bicarbazole derivative containing an aryl group and a second host which is a specific carbazole derivative including a nitrogen-containing heteroaryl which provides an organic electroluminescent device with high efficiency and long lifespan compared to devices which only use one host material (abstract), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 8, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and the second host is identical to instant GEH2, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 24, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, and Kwon teaches an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0294) which is patterned onto a glass substrate (paragraph 0290).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an organic light emitting device on a glass substrate comprising the diode of Kwon and Ahn as taught by Kwon.
Claims 9-16, 18-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2022/0069237 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2017/0077423 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0166647 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Kwon and Ahn teach the light emitting diode of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Kwon nor Ahn teach a second emitting layer separated from the first emitting layer by a charge generation layer.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a white LED device having a tandem structure in which there is a first emitting layer including a blue emitting layer, and a second emitting layer including a yellow-green emitting layer, which are vertically laminated with a charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers (paragraph 0007). Shin teaches that in order to obtain a white LED having long lifetime, an LED having a tandem structure with plural emitting units is widely used (paragraph 0006). Shin also teaches that use of a charge generation layer between emitting layers increases the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distributes charge to each emitting layer (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Examiner would like to note that as Kwon teaches a device comprising the compound may emit white light (paragraph 0218), this is interpreted to overlap in scope with Shin who teaches one blue light layer and one yellow-green layer which results in white light emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emitting layer composition of Kwong and Ahn as one of the emitting layers in a tandem device structure with plural emitting layers in order to obtain a white light emitting LED having long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a charge generation layer between emitting layers in order to increase the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distribute charge to each emitting layer, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 10, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 9, and Shin also teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer, a green emitting material layer, and a yellow-green emitting material layer.
Examiner notes that Kwon teaches the compounds typically emit in the 500-600 nm range, which makes them suitable for some green emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host and dopant of Kwon and Ahn in one of the layers, such as the green emitting layer of the second emitting material layer in the device of Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 11, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 10, and Shin teaches three sublayers in the second emitting material layer, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 12, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 9, and Shin teaches that the organic light emitting diode may further include a third emitting material layer and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting parts (paragraphs 0103-0104).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third emitting material layer and a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 13, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 12, and Shin also teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer, a green emitting material layer, and a yellow-green emitting material layer.
Examiner notes that Kwon teaches the compounds typically emit in the 500-600 nm range, which makes them suitable for some green emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host and dopant of Kwon and Ahn in one of the layers, such as the green emitting layer of the second emitting material layer in the device of Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 14, Kwon discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising an anode (a first electrode), a cathode (a second electrode) and an emissive layer between the electrodes (paragraph 0161) which comprises a compound (paragraph 0030) such as compound 1 (page 45) pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of instant Formula 1 when LA has the structure of Formula 2, LB has the structure of Formula 5A, m is 1, n is 2, and m+n is 3.
In Formula 2, X1 and X2 are CR7, X3 to X5 are each CR8, X6 to X9 are each CR9, a is 0 and R1 through R5 are not present, b is 0 and R6 is not present, and R7 through R9 are each hydrogen.
In Formula 5A, f and g are 0, and R21 and R22 are not present.
However, while Kwon teaches that the emission layer may further comprise a host (paragraph 0156), all the example devices comprise a single host compound (paragraph 0292), and a dual host composition is not taught nor fairly suggested.
In analogous art, Ahn teaches an organic light electroluminescent device comprising a light emitting layer with a phosphorescent dopant and multi-component host compounds which result in high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound (abstract).
Ahn gives an example of the first host compound, which is H1-89 (page 24), pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
506
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant first host compound represented by Formula 7 when X is CR43R44, Z1 to Z4 are each CR45, R41 is a phenyl-substituted C12 heteroaryl (carbazolyl), R42 is not present, R43 and R44 are each a C1 alkyl (methyl) group, three of R45 are a hydrogen atom and the R45 at Z3 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl (phenyl) group, L1 and L2 are each a single bond, and p is 0.
Ahn also gives an example of the second host compound, which is H2-112 (page 49), pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
506
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant second host compound represented by Formula 9 when R51 and R52 are a C6 aryl (phenyl), and R53 has the structure of Formula 10A, Y1 through Y3 are each nitrogen atoms, and L is a C6 arylene (m-phenylene).
In Formula 10A, R62 and R63 are linked to form a dimethyl-substituted indenocarbazole moiety, and all other R characters are hydrogen atoms.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dual host composition of Ahn in the emitting layer of the device of Kwon in order to achieve high efficiency and long lifespan compared to a conventional device with only one host compound, as taught by Ahn.
However, neither Kwon nor Ahn teach a second emitting part separated from the first emitting layer by a charge generation layer.
In analogous art, Shin teaches a white LED device having a tandem structure in which there is a first emitting layer including a blue emitting layer, and a second emitting layer including a yellow-green emitting layer, which are vertically laminated with a charge generation layer between the first and second emitting layers (paragraph 0007). Shin teaches that in order to obtain a white LED having long lifetime, an LED having a tandem structure with plural emitting units is widely used (paragraph 0006). Shin also teaches that use of a charge generation layer between emitting layers increases the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distributes charge to each emitting layer (paragraphs 0007-0008).
Examiner would like to note that as Kwon teaches a device comprising the compound may emit white light (paragraph 0218), this is interpreted to overlap in scope with Shin who teaches one blue light layer and one yellow-green layer which results in white light emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emitting layer composition of Kwong and Ahn as one of the emitting layers in a tandem device structure with plural emitting layers in order to obtain a white light emitting LED having long lifetime, as taught by Shin.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a charge generation layer between emitting layers in order to increase the current efficiency of each emitting layer and smoothly distribute charge to each emitting layer, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and LA has the structure of Formula 4A or 4C when c is 0, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 18, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and X1 and X2 are CR7, X3 to X5 are each CR8, X6 to X9 are each CR9, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 19, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and Shin also teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer, a green emitting material layer, and a yellow-green emitting material layer.
Examiner notes that Kwon teaches the compounds typically emit in the 500-600 nm range, which makes them suitable for some green emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host and dopant of Kwon and Ahn in one of the layers, such as the green emitting layer of the second emitting material layer in the device of Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 20, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 19, and the third layer is a yellow-green emitting material layer, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 21, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and Shin also teaches that the emissive layer may further comprising a third emitting layer between the second emitting layer and the second electrode including a second charge generation layer between the second and third emitting material layers, and the third emitting material layer may be a blue emitting material layer (paragraphs 0103-0104).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a third, blue emitting material layer and a second charge generation layer between the second emitting layer and the second electrode, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 22, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 21, and Shin also teaches that the second emitting material layer may include a red emitting material layer, a green emitting material layer, and a yellow-green emitting material layer.
Examiner notes that Kwon teaches the compounds typically emit in the 500-600 nm range, which makes them suitable for some green emission.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the host and dopant of Kwon and Ahn in one of the layers, such as the green emitting layer of the second emitting material layer in the device of Shin, as taught by Shin.
With respect to claim 23, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 22, and the third sublayer of the second emitting material layer emits yellow-green light, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 25, Kwon, Ahn, and Shin teach the light emitting diode of claim 14, and Kwon teaches an organic light emitting device (paragraph 0294) which is patterned onto a glass substrate (paragraph 0290).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an organic light emitting device on a glass substrate comprising the diode of Kwon, Ahn, and Shin, as taught by Kwon.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights