DETAILED ACTION
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. The confusing descriptions include the following. First, in the amendment filed on 4/01/2026, the compounds labeled as P-PD1, P-PD2 and P-PD3 in paragraphs [0190]-[0193] are replaced by P-D01, P-D02 and P-D03, respectively, but the compounds indicated in Table 1 are labeled as P-DO1, P-DO2 and P-DO3. Note that the number zero “0” is differentiated from the alphabet letter “O”. Second, the group X in the compound P-D01 in paragraph [0190] is not described anywhere in the disclosure. Finally, Table 2 shows devices in which P-DO3 is used both as a host material and as a dopant material (4%, 6% and 8%) in the HIL, which does not make any sense.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,176,844 A1 to Kim et al. with evidentiary support from US 2019/0198788 A1 to Moon et al.
The relevant disclosure by Kim et al. was described previously but is herein reproduced for ease of reading. Additional comments have been added to address the new features introduced by the amendment.
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses an organic light emitting display device having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL1/EML1/ETL1/NTCGL/PTCGL/HTL2/EML2 /ETL2/EIL/cathode, wherein NTCGL and PTCGL stand for n-type charge-generation and p-type charge-generation layer, wherein both EML1 and EML2 emit blue light, and wherein the HIL and the PTCGL comprise NPD doped with 10 wt% of compound B31 (in example 10) or A33 (in example 12),
PNG
media_image1.png
208
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
202
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The performance of the two devices is shown in Table 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
166
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that compounds B31 and A33 differ from the compounds of formulae 1-1 and 1-2 in claim 1 in that the groups corresponding to C₁ and C₂ are H instead of halogen or cyano. However, when a POSITA studies the prior art examples 10 and 12, he/she would realize that the device performance improves as the number of cyano groups increases from 6 groups per molecule in B31 to 8 groups per molecule in A33. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the prior art device by employing, as the dopant in the PTCGL and/or HIL, a version that has a relatively large number of fluorine or cyano groups, such as the following
PNG
media_image4.png
234
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
to obtain a lower driving voltage and a higher efficiency. Further, while the p-type dopant is used in an amount of 10% in the HIL of the prior art device, which is more than the amount of 2-8% set forth in claim 1, said 10% is merely an example; Kim et al. does not place any restriction on the amount of the p-dopant in the HIL. Thus, since the term “dopant” is generally understood in the art to mean a minor amount, e.g., less than 15%, relative to a host or a matrix (see paragraph [0049] of Moon et al.), it would have been obvious to a POSITA to adjust the amount of the p-dopant in the range of, say, 1-15%, without expecting any significant impact. Claim 1 is consequently unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(G). So are claims 4-6, 8-9 and 12. Claim 3 represents an obvious variation of the prior art teachings. For example, given compounds A35 and A41,
PNG
media_image5.png
178
350
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
234
334
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
a POSITA would also use the following derivative
PNG
media_image7.png
106
258
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and expect a favorable outcome. This compound is identical to compound PD36 of claim 3. The features of claim 10 are disclosed in paragraphs [0040] and [0058], and the features of claims 17-18 are disclosed in paragraph [0089]. Regarding claims 13-14, the corresponding distance in the prior art device is the total thickness of the ETL2 and the EIL, which are disclosed to be 1-150 nm and 1-50 nm, respectively (see [0056]-[0057]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to vary the gap between the EML2 and the cathode in the range of 2-200 nm, i.e., 20-2,000 Å, and expect a favorable outcome. Similarly, regarding claims 15-16, the corresponding distance in the prior art device is the total thickness of ETL1, NTCGL, PTCGL, HTL2, EML2, ETL2 and EIL. Each of ETL1, HTL2 and ETL2 has a thickness of 1-150 nm. EIL has a thickness of 1-50 nm. One may safely assume that the emitting layer EML2 has an average thickness of about 1-150 nm, and the combined thickness of NTCGL and PTCGL of about 1-50 nm. Thus, the distance between the EML1 and the cathode is about 6-700 nm, or 60-7,000 Å, which overlaps the claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,176,844 A1 to Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0312221 A1 to Park.
Kim et al. fails to teach a capping layer. Nevertheless, since Park teaches that a capping layer may be disposed on the outer surface of the cathode of an OLED to protect the device [0076], it would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the instant invention was filed to add a capping layer on the outer surface of the cathode of the device disclosed by Kim et al. to protect the device, e.g., from moisture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the specification, applicant alleges that the group X in the structure P-DO1 “is a structure containing a cyano group”. This information is not found anywhere in the disclosure. Further, applicant fails to address the objection to Table 2 which indicates, in embodiments 3-5, P-DO3 as both the host and the dopant. As for the rejection over the prior art, applicant states that “Kim provides no specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation to simultaneously introduce electron-withdrawing groups specifically at the C₁, C₂, R₅ and R6 positions as defined in the present invention.” However, in formulae 1-1 and 1-2 in claim 1, the subscripts n and m include zero, and R5 and R6 may therefore be absent.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights