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 .
Summary of Claims
Claims 1, 7-8, and 10 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 01/20/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claims 1, 9-10, and 13 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's reply dated 01/20/2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 10-11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su (Su, Zisheng, et al. "Triplet to singlet transition induced low efficiency roll-off in green phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes." Thin solid films 519.8 (2011): 2540-2543.) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0209873 A1) in view of Xia (US 2011/0215710 A1) and Su is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xia, Su, Inoue (US 2014/0231770 A1) and Kosage (US 2011/0240971 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xia, Su, and Tomohiro (English translation of JP 2004273190 A obtained from Global Dossier) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xia, Su, and Yang (US 2014/0054570 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Xia, Su, and Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 01/20/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 23-26 of the reply dated 01/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended which require a phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1 wherein n is an integer of 1 to 3, and a fluorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 2 wherein R11 and R13 are selected from groups that do not include alkyl.
Examiner's response –As discussed in the new grounds of rejection below, the previously cited reference Kim in view of Xia teach the modified Complex 2, which is a phosphorescent dopant that reads on the amended Chemical Formula 1. Additionally, the newly cited reference Wang (English translation of CN 1482127 A obtained from Espacenet) teaches a fluorescent dopant that reads on the amended Chemical Formula 2. Accordingly, the cited references teach the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites Chemical Formula 1 which includes variables R1 to R5. However, claim 1 is amended to recite a1 to a5 are each 0 and thus R1 to R5 are not required to be present. Accordingly, for ease of reading, it is recommended to amend the Chemical Formula 1 such that the variables R1 to R5 are not present in the structural formula.
Claim 10 recites “Compound 2-1 to Compound 2-117” but only provides structures for Compound 2-31 to Compound 2-117. Accordingly, it is recommended to replace “Compound 2-1 to Compound 2-117” with “Compound 2-31 to Compound 2-117”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0209873 A1) in view of Xia (US 2011/0215710 A1), Mishima (US 2008/0191618 A1), and Wang (English translation of CN 1482127 A obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding claims 1-9, 11, and 15, Kim teaches an organic light-emitting diode having high luminescent efficiency by including an organometallic complex represented by Formula 1 (¶ [0111] and [0114]). Kim teaches examples of such devices including that of Example 4 which comprises a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer formed of CBP as a host and Complex 2 as a dopant in a weight ratio of 98:2, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0232]-[0234]; structure on pg. 30).
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
182
299
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Complex 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
169
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Complex 2 fails to read on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 as it does not include a heterocyclic substituent on the pyridine ring. However, Kim does teach in Formula 1 R4 may be an unsubstituted C2-C30 heteroaryl group (¶ [0009]).
Xia teaches compounds comprising a 2-phenylpyridine ligand further substituted with a heterocyclic group provide organic light emitting devices with improved efficiency, lifetime, and stability (abstract; ¶ [0065]). Xia teaches examples of such compounds including Compound 33 (pg. 33).
Compound 33:
PNG
media_image3.png
228
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in Kim’s Complex 2 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 a pyridine group in the location of R4 and corresponding to position 2 of the pyridine ring, as shown in Xia’s Compound 33, based on the teaching of Xia. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved efficiency, lifetime, and stability, as taught by Xia.
As the modified Complex 2 comprise a 2-phenylpyridine ligand further substituted with a heterocyclic group, the device of Kim in view of Xia is expected to obtain the benefits of Xia.
The modified Complex 2 of Kim in view of Xia is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Chemical Formula 1.
Kim in view of Xia:
PNG
media_image4.png
285
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image5.png
308
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The modified Complex 2 reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 1 wherein:
A1 and A2 are each carbon and A3 is nitrogen;
a1 to a5 are each 0 and a6 is an integer of 2;
R1 to R5 are not required to be present;
W is a halogen group; and
n is 1.
Accordingly, the modified Complex 2 meets the limitations of claim 7 and reads on the claimed compound 1-25 (claim 9).
The emission layer in the device of Kim in view of Xia fails to include an additional dopant.
Mishima teaches a light-emitting layer of an organic electroluminescence device may contain two or more light-emitting materials (dopants) to improve color purity or to expand a wavelength region of light (abstract; ¶ [0044]).
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 include two or more light-emitting materials in the emission layer of the device of Kim in view of Xia, based on the teaching of Mishima. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve color purity or to expand a wavelength region of light, as taught by Mishima.
The device of Kim in view of Xia and Mishima fail to teach a light-emitting material represented by Chemical Formula 2.
Wang teaches an organic electroluminescent device having high luminous efficiency, good stability, high brightness, and low turn voltage by including a quinacridone derivative represented by formula (I) (¶ [0011]-[0012] and [0023]). Particularly, the quinacridone derivative is used as a light-emitting material and is doped in a light-emitting layer at a concentration of 0.5-5 wt% (¶ [0015] and [0178]). Examples of the quinacridone derivative include TMDTQ (¶ [0052]-[0053]; structure on pg. 40).
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 further include 0.5-5 wt% of a quinacridone derivative represented by Wang’s formula (I) in the emission layer, based on the teaching of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high luminous efficiency, good stability, high brightness, and low turn voltage, as taught by Wang.
Particularly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TMDTQ, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified quinacridone derivatives taught by Wang, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a dopant in the emission layer of the device of Kim in view of Xia and Mishima and possessing the benefits taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising quinacridone derivatives represented by Wang’s formula (I) having the benefits taught by Wang in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
TMDTQ has the structure below and thus reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2 wherein: b1 and b2 are each 2; R11 and R13 are each a substituted aryl group having 6 carbon atoms; and R12 and R14 are each an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (claim 8).
TMDTQ:
PNG
media_image6.png
245
264
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, the emission layer comprises 2 wt% of the modified Complex 2 and 0.5-5 wt% of TMDTQ. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claims 2-6, Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang appear silent with respect to: i) an emission peak of the modified Complex 2 overlaps with an absorption peak of TMDTQ, wherein an overlap area is 35% or more of an entire area of the emission peak and the absorption peak (claim 2); ii) a difference between a maximum emission peak wavelength of the modified Complex 2 and a maximum absorption peak wavelength of TMDTQ is 5 nm to 20 nm (claim 3); iii) the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ satisfying 0.1 ≥ LUMOFD – LUMOPD ≥ -0.6 (claim 4); iv) the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ satisfying HOMOFD ≥ HOMOPD (claim 5); and v) the modified Complex 2 having an energy band gap of 2.0 eV to 3.0 eV (claim 6).
The instant specification recites that i) an overlap area between an emission peak of the phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an absorption peak of the fluorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 2 may be 35% or more of the entire area of the emission peak and the absorption peak (instant ¶ [0085]); ii) a difference between a maximum emission peak wavelength of the phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1 and a maximum absorption peak wavelength of the fluorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula may be 5 nm to 20 nm (instant ¶ [0084]); iii) the phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1 and the fluorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 2 may satisfy 0.1 ≥ LUMOFD – LUMOPD ≥ -0.6 (instant ¶ [0088]-[0090]); iv) the phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1 and the fluorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 2 may satisfy HOMOFD ≥ HOMOPD (instant ¶ [0087]); the phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1 may have an energy band gap of 2.0 eV to 3.0 eV (instant ¶ [0073]).
Since Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang teaches the modified Complex 2 (a phosphorescent dopant represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 1 that reads on the claimed compound 1-25, as described above) and TMDTQ (a fluorescent dopant that reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2, as described above, which is also a positional isomer of the claimed compound 2-39), which are the same structure or nearly identical to the structures disclosed by the Applicant, conditions i)-v) above are considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the ranges in the claims), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang teach the device including TMDTQ, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Formula (I):
PNG
media_image7.png
152
317
media_image7.png
Greyscale
TMDTQ:
PNG
media_image6.png
245
264
media_image6.png
Greyscale
TMDTQ fails to read on a claimed compound as it comprises methyl groups in each of the meta positions with respect to the C-N bond rather than in a meta and para position. However, as shown in formula (I) above, the positioning of R3 to R6 is not limited to specific locations (see Wang, ¶ [0014] and pg. 43).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the positional isomer of TDMTQ wherein the methyl groups are provided in the meta and para positions with respect to the C-N bond, and thus arrive at a compound having the structure of the claimed compound 2-39. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce the positional isomers of the compound represented by TDMTQ in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as a light-emitting material in the emission layer of the device of Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang and possess the properties taught by Wang. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
The modified TDMTQ reads on the claimed compound 2-39 (claim 10).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0209873 A1) in view of Xia (US 2011/0215710 A1), Mishima (US 2008/0191618 A1), and Wang (English translation of CN 1482127 A obtained from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 2014/0231770 A1) and Kosage (US 2011/0240974 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang teach the device including a host and the modified Complex 2 and TDMTQ as dopants in the emission layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang appear silent with respect to a singlet energy level and a triplet energy level of the modified Complex 2 being higher than a singlet energy level and a triplet energy level of TDMTQ.
The instant specification recites that a singlet energy level of the phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1 may be higher than a singlet energy level of the fluorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 2, and a triplet energy level of the phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 1 may be higher than a triplet energy level of the fluorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 2 (instant ¶ [0091]-[0096] and [0210]-[0214]).
Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang teach the modified Complex 2 (a phosphorescent dopant represented by the claimed Chemical Formula 1 that reads on the claimed compound 1-25, as described above) and TMDTQ (a fluorescent dopant that reads on the claimed Chemical Formula 2, as described above, which is also a positional isomer of the claimed compound 2-39), which are the same structures or nearly identical to the structures disclosed by the Applicant, a singlet energy level and a triplet energy level of the modified Complex 2 being higher than a singlet energy level and a triplet energy level of TMDTQ is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang fail to teach the host has a singlet energy level and a triplet energy level higher than the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ.
Inoue teaches in a light-emitting device the T1 level of a host material is preferably higher than the T1 level of the guest material so as to prevent light emission quenching (¶ [0108] and [0110]).
Additionally, Kosage teaches it is necessary for the host material to have higher S1 energy than that of the guest material to achieve efficient excitation energy transfer between host and guest (¶ [0062]).
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 further select the host material such that it has a T1 level and S1 level higher than that of the guest material (the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ), based on the teachings of Inoue and Kosage. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent light emission quenching and achieve efficient excitation energy transfer between host and guest, as taught by Inoue and Kosage.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0209873 A1) in view of Xia (US 2011/0215710 A1), Mishima (US 2008/0191618 A1), and Wang (English translation of CN 1482127 A obtained from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomohiro (English translation of JP 2004273190 A obtained from Global Dossier).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang teach the device including CBP as a host and the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ as dopants in the emission layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang fail to teach a host compound that reads on a claimed structure. However, Kim does teach the host is not limited to specific structures (¶ [0164]).
Tomohiro teaches an organic electroluminescent element with high emission luminance and long life by including a host compound represented by one of general formulas (1), (2), and (3) or the structural formula (A) and a phosphorescent compound (¶ [0021] and [0039]). Tomohiro teaches examples of such compounds including compound (1) (¶ [0052]). As shown in Table 1, a device comprising compound (1) as a host compound obtains improved emission luminance and lifetime compared to a device comprising CBP as a host (see Table 1 on pg. 16; ¶ [0163]).
compound (1):
PNG
media_image8.png
113
117
media_image8.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 host compound CBP with Tomohiro’s compound (1), based on the teaching of Tomohiro. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved emission luminance and lifetime, as taught by Tomohiro.
As shown by the structure above, Tomohiro’s compound (1) reads on the claimed compound 3-3 (claim 13).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0209873 A1) in view of Xia (US 2011/0215710 A1), Mishima (US 2008/0191618 A1), and Wang (English translation of CN 1482127 A obtained from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2014/0054570 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang teach the device including a host and the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ as dopants in the emission layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang fail to teach the device comprises a plurality of emission layers.
Yang teaches an organic light-emitting device having improved light-emitting efficiency by comprising a light-emitting layer that comprises three successive light-emitting sub-layers, i.e., a first light-emitting sub-layer, a second light-emitting sub-layer, and a third light-emitting sub-layer (abstract and ¶ [0007]). In this device, each of the three light-emitting sub-layers is formed by doping a matrix material with a light-emitting material (¶ [0009]). As shown in the examples, three light-emitting sub-layers use the same light-emitting material (¶ [0113] and [0117]). A mixture matrix material is employed as the matrix material for the second light-emitting sub-layer, wherein the mixture matrix material is formed by mixing a matrix material with hole transport capacity and a matrix material with electron transport capacity; a matrix material with hole transport capacity is employed as the matrix material for the first-light emitting sub-layer; and a matrix material with electron transport capacity is employed as a matrix material for the third light-emitting sub-layer (¶ [0009]).
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 use three successive light-emitting sub-layers for the emitting layer of Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang, wherein each of the sub-layers include the light emitting materials of the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ; a mixture matrix material is further employed as the matrix material for the second light-emitting sub-layer, wherein the mixture matrix material is formed by mixing a matrix material with hole transport capacity and a matrix material with electron transport capacity; a matrix material with hole transport capacity is further employed as the matrix material for the first-light emitting sub-layer; and a matrix material with electron transport capacity is further employed as a matrix material for the third light-emitting sub-layer, based on the teaching of Yang. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved light-emitting efficiency, as taught by Yang.
The resulting device comprises a plurality of emission layers, each including a host and the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0209873 A1) in view of Xia (US 2011/0215710 A1), Mishima (US 2008/0191618 A1), and Wang (English translation of CN 1482127 A obtained from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 7,652,287 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang teach the device including a host and the modified Complex 2 and TMDTQ as dopants in the emission layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang fail to teach the device further includes a thin film transistor over the substrate and connected to the organic light emitting diode.
Jeong teaches a light emitting display device including a thin film transistor (TNT) and a light emitting diode, wherein the TNT includes an N-type oxide semiconductor layer on a substrate, a source electrode, and a drain electrode (abstract and col. 2 lines 64-67). Jeong teaches the cathode electrode of the OLED may electrically contact the drain electrode of the TFT (col. 6, lines 54-58).
Jeong teaches the light emitting display including the TNT substantially overcomes one or more of the problems of the related art, which includes low mobility of the semiconductor layer, leakage current, and increased contact resistance (col. 1, 12-45).
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 include the organic electroluminescence device of Kim in view of Xia, Mishima, and Wang as the OLED of the light emitting display device of Jeong, based on the teaching of Jeong. The motivation for doing so would have been to substantially overcome the problems of the related art discussed above, as taught by Jeong.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786