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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is response to the amendment received on 13 March 2026. Claims 1, 4, and 6 are amended; claims 5, 7, and 13 are cancelled; and claims 14-16 are new. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, and 14-16 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 13 March 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 13 March 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2019/0103583A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 13 March 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 3 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0103583A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020/021714) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 13 March 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 4 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0103583A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020/021714) and further in view of Stephenson et al. (Chem. Sci., 2015, 6, 537-541) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 13 March 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0103583A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 8946697B1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 13 March 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0103583A1) in view of Ma et al. (US 8946697B1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 13 March 2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 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(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially the same as an area” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same as an area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially the same as an area” is a relative term that does not discernably limit the positioning of the light-emitting layer relative to the sacrificial layer in any direction. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this term in claim 15 as a display device that comprises a light-emitting layer and a sacrificial layer.
The term “area larger than an area” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “area larger than an area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “area larger than an area” is a relative term that does not discernably limit the size of the sacrificial layer disposed in the light-emitting layer. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this term in claim 16 as a display device that is disposed on an area where the light-emitting layer is disposed.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwack et al. (US20110291117A1, hereinafter "Kwack") in view of Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020/021714, hereinafter "Yamamoto") in view of Ma et al. (EP2730583A1). Note that a machine-generated English translation is relied upon and provided with this office action.
In the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, Kwack teaches a display device containing:
a first substrate (10);
an organic light emitting diode (20) including an organic emission layer (22) that is disposed over the first substrate;
a sacrificial layer (14) that is located over the light emitting diode and is a layer that may include a metal (¶ [0049]);
a second substrate (13) that is located over the sacrificial layer wherein the “thin film encapsulation layer [is] formed on the second substrate” (¶ [0048]);
wherein the thin film encapsulation layer has a layered structure of inorganic film and organic film that include at least one inorganic film and at least one organic film (¶ [0052]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of invention could arrive at a device of Kwack that contains a second substrate that reads on the encapsulation layer positioned on the sacrificial layer including an organic layer interposed between a first inorganic layer and a second inorganic layer of instant claim 1.
Kwack teaches all the above; however, Kwack fails to teach (1) the sacrificial layer comprising the first compound of D1 to D11 and a third compound represented by Formula 1 and Formula 2, and (2) the encapsulation layer comprising a second compound derived of I1 to I2. Kwack does not particularly limit the identity of the sacrificial layer, defining the sacrificial layer to include a metal (¶ [0049]). Kwack does not particularly limit the identity of the encapsulation layer, defining the organic layer as any one of epoxy, acrylate, and urethaneacrylate (¶ [0053]). Note that an acrylate is an olefin-containing material.
Yamamoto teaches, in the analogous art of encapsulations for organic light-emitting devices, an ultraviolet-curable resin composition for encapsulating organic EL elements for the protection from moisture and degradation that leads to the occurrence of dark spots. Yamamoto teaches an encapsulation composition that includes an olefin-based material and a photoinitiator (Yamamoto, Examples, ¶ [0120]). Yamamoto recites photopolymerization initiators such as 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl-diphenylphosphine oxide (also called “TPO”) that can be converted into a radical during the polymerization process (Yamamoto, Description of Embodiments, ¶ [0048]-[0050]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Yamamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the encapsulation olefin-material of Kwack with the encapsulation composition of Yamamoto, including the olefin-material and photopolymerization initiator. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the encapsulation layer for the EL device of Kim would possess the benefits of the protection from moisture and degradation that leads to the occurrence of dark spots as taught by Yamamoto. See MPEP § 2143.1.(B).
The resulting Modified Device of Kwack and Yamamoto has an encapsulation layer comprising a photocurable resin and a photoinitiator such as 2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl-diphenylphosphine oxide or “TPO.” The compound TPO is a compound of the claimed chemical formula I1 in instant claim 1 with the following chemical structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
261
339
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Modified Device of Kwack and Yamamoto teaches all the above; however, the combination of Kwack and Yamamoto fails to teach the sacrificial layer comprising the first compound of D1 to D11 and a third compound represented by Formula 1 and Formula 2.
Ma teaches, in the analogous art of organic-light emitting devices, an organic light-emitting device comprising of an iridium polypyridyl complex with the General Formula of Ma and a Compound 122 wherein A6 in N and R3 is methyl, both shown below (¶ [0016], pg 19 [0056]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1620
4393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 122 of Ma is a compound of instant Formula 1 wherein R1 is a C1 alkyl group and R2 is hydrogen and at least one of R1 and R2 is not hydrogen.
Ma teaches other specific embodiments of the General Formula of Ma including Compound II-1 where R1 is methyl (pg 207, pg 226 claim 18). In addition, Ma does not particularly limit the identity of R1: Ma defines R1 as selected from the group consisting of alkyl (¶ [0019] – [0020]).
PNG
media_image3.png
1198
1739
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ma teaches that organic light-emitting devices containing compounds of the General Formula of Ma exhibit better efficiency and EQE (Table 6, [0076] – [0084]).
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 substitute the R1 group in the Compound 122 of Ma with a methyl group of Ma. The motivation for doing so would have been to create an organic light-emitting device that has better efficiency and EQE as taught by Ma (Table 6, [0076] – [0084]).
The resulting Modified Compound of Ma is shown below and is a compound of instant claim 1 wherein the Modified Compound of Ma is the same as instant compound D11.
PNG
media_image4.png
1312
1739
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 substitute the sacrificial layer and the light emitting layer in the Modified Device of Kwack and Yamamoto with the Compound 122 and the Modified Compound of Ma respectively. The motivation for doing so would have been to create an organic light-emitting device that has better efficiency and EQE as taught by Ma (Table 6, [0076] – [0084]).
The resulting Modified Device II of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma containing (1) an encapsulation layer with a photocurable resin and a photoinitiator “TPO” and (2) a sacrificial and light-emitting layer with Compound 122 and the Modified Compound of Ma reads on instant claims 1 and 2.
Regarding instant claim 3, the combination of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the second compound being a radical derived from a photoinitiator such as TPO. It is reasonable to presume that the radical derived from TPO is inherent to TPO. Support for said presumption is found in that TPO forms the radical pair of diphenylphosphinoyl radical and the acylmesitaldehyde radical under thermal or photoactivation as taught by Ruhland et al. (APPL. POLYM. SCI. 2020, 48357) Therefore, the radical compounds derived from TPO will inherently form as the second compound, which reads on instant claim 3.
Regarding instant claims 8-9 and 15-16, Kwack teaches the sacrificial layer is formed in an area that is larger than the area of display area, which reads on the sacrificial layer being positioned in an entire area and positioned in a substantially same as an area in which the light-emitting layer is positioned ([0048]).
Regarding instant claim 11-12, the Modified Device II of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma has an encapsulation layer comprising a photocurable resin and a photoinitiator TPO.
Regarding instant claim 14, Kwack teaches the sacrificial layer is formed on a heat-resistant member layer (15), which reads on the device of instant claim 14 wherein a capping layer is positioned on the light-emitting element wherein the sacrificial layer is disposed on the capping layer.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwack et al. (US20110291117A1), Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020/021714), Ma et al. (EP2730583A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-16 described above, in further view of Stephenson et al. (Chem. Sci., 2015, 6, 537–541, hereinafter "Stephenson").
Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma teach the Modified Device II as applied to claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-16 as described above wherein the sacrificial layer comprises the first compound which is the Modified Compound of Ma equivalent to instant D11; however, they fail to teach (1) the third compound is a reaction product of the first compound and the second compound of instant claim 4 and (2) the difference in molecular weight between the third compound and the first compound being in a range of 19 to 297 g/mol of instant claim 6.
Stephenson teaches in the analogous art of the photochemistry of photoactive transition metal-centered complexes that dopants for the light emitting layer, such as Ir(ppy)3, are unstable under the presence of other radical species. Ir(ppy)3 readily undergoes photoaddition reactions that functionalize the radicophilic “ppy” ligands (Stephenson, see abstract, see pg 538 column II to pg 539 column I). Stephenson teaches that compound 1, Ir(ppy)3, reacts with the carbon-center radical generated of compound 3, to generate compound 5 as seen in equation (2) shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
164
423
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Stephenson teaches that Ir(ppy)3, reacts with carbon-centered radical species to form mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-, and pentaalkylations of 1 (Stephenson, Pg 539, column I). Stephenson teaches that derivatives of Ir(ppy)3, such as compounds 6, 7, and 8, also reacts with carbon-centered radical species by providing an avenue for benzylic functionalization of the complex (Stephenson, Pg 540, column I – II).
PNG
media_image6.png
233
382
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 modify the Modified Compound of Ma in the sacrificial layer of the Modified Device II of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma with a radical compound derived of TPO. The motivation for doing so would have been to account for the presence of radical species in the presence of an organometallic complex as taught by Stephenson.
Regarding instant claim 4, the Modified Device II of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma contains (1) an encapsulation layer with a photocurable resin and a photoinitiator “TPO” and (2) a sacrificial and light-emitting layer with Compound 122 and the Modified Compound of Ma reads on instant claims 1 and 2. The Modified Compound of Ma, the radical derived from TPO, and the Compound 122 read on the first, second, and third compounds, respectively, wherein the third compound is a reaction product of the first and second compound. Note that the phrase “reaction product” is vague and does not particularly limit the type of reaction or the structural requirements of the product compound compounds. The specification offers little guidance to what the “reaction” is defined as and offered, instead, a non-limiting example (Specification ¶[00075]). One interpretation is that first and second compounds participate in an energy transfer reaction wherein the third compound is the energy transfer reaction recipient or product. Another interpretation is that the first and second compounds participate in a radical de-methylation reaction, wherein the second compound could be playing any role such as a catalyst or radical scavenger. Toward the latter end, the combination of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma fail to teach the first compound is a reactive species in such a way to generate the third compound as a reaction product. It is reasonable to presume that the first compound, which is the Modified Compound of Ma, wherein the property of being a radical-reactive species is inherent to the Modified Compound of Ma because Stephenson teaches that Ir complexes participate in radical reactions in the presence of radical species. The iridium complex of Stephenson is similar to the Modified Compound of Ma in that both contain iridium and ligands that contain pyridine attached to an aryl group. Furthermore, both complexes contain methyl groups, which was shown by Stephenson to be more reactive.
Furthermore, 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 expected success in having the Modified Compound of Ma participating in a radical reaction to generate Compound 122 in the Modified Device II of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma, based on the teachings of Stephenson. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device that accounts for Ir deactivation as taught by Stephenson.
Regarding instant claim 6, the photoinitiator TPO of Yamamoto would generate the “acylmesityl” carbon-centered radical (147 g/mol) and the corresponding “diphenylphosphinyl” radical (201 g/mol). The radical addition of either radical generated from TPO to the dopant of Stephenson would have resulted in a new molecular weight mass between 19-294 g/mol of claim 6, a reaction pathway as described above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwack et al. (US20110291117A1, hereinafter "Kwack"), Yamamoto et al. (JP 2020/021714, hereinafter "Yamamoto"), Ma et al. (EP2730583A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-16 described above, in further view of Griffin et al. (US 2007/0190234 A1, hereinafter "Griffin").
The combination of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma teaches the Modified Device II that reads on claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-16 as described above; however, the combination fails to teach the sacrificial layer and the light-emitting layer are formed using the same mask.
Griffin teaches, in the analogous art of organic light-emitting displays a method of making a display using a mask to deposit the materials. Griffin teaches that the multiple organic layers of an individual OLED device may use a common shadow mask to deposit the organic material (Griffin, Pg 2, ¶ [0029] – [0030]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected success at the time of invention in combining the Modified Device II with the mask method of Griffin. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the predictable result that the organic light-emitting layers formed through the same mask of Griffin would be useful in the Modified Device II of Kwack, Yamamoto, and Ma and the device would possess the benefits of lower cost, higher efficiency, and less variations from the repeated use of a single mask as taught by Griffin.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCAS Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Fridays 7:45 am to 12:00 pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/L.Q.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights