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 1–8, 12, 14, and 15 are amended, claims 21–25 are new. Claims 1–25 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 14 as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 05/22/2026. The objection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 1–3 and 15 on the grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 14, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/072,309 set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn since Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer on 05/22/2026. It was approved on 05/26/2026.
The rejection of claim 1 on the grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/074,059 set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn since Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer on 05/22/2026. It was approved on 05/26/2026.
The rejection of claims 1 and 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 10,510,973 B2, hereinafter “Yamamoto”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/22/2026. The rejection is modified below.
The rejection of claims 4 and 8–11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Lamansky et al. (J. Am. Chem. 2001, 123, 4304-4312, hereinafter “Lamansky”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/22/2026. The rejection is modified below.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Lamansky, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0251663 A1, hereinafter “Choi”) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 05/22/2026. The rejection is modified below.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 21–22 of the reply dated 05/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant has amended claim 1 to now recite “each of the first and second emitting parts includes a green phosphorescent emitting layer and a green fluorescent emitting layer.” This requires that both the phosphorescent and fluorescent emitting layers in each emitting part to emit green light. Applicant argues that this amendment overcomes the teachings of Yamamoto since Yamamoto’s alleged entire teaching is directed to an emissive stack wherein the emissive layers emit different colors from each other.
Examiner's response – The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 5B is just one embodiment taught by Yamamoto. More broadly, Yamamoto teaches a symmetric emissive-layer architecture which comprises three layers wherein the top and bottom layer emit light in the same or similar color region while the middle layer emits light in a different color region than the other two layers [abstract]. Yamamoto defines “same or similar color region” as having a difference in the emission peak of the two layers of less than 10 nm [column 11, lines 40–50]. Additionally, Yamamoto teaches the color of light emitted from an OLED device including an emissive stack of present invention can be any color, including green light [column 12, lines 35–40]
Therefore, Yamamoto teaches a device similar to Figure 5B which emits green light, wherein the top and bottom layers have a certain green emission peak while the middle layer has a green emission peak which is 10 nm outside of the emission peak of the top and bottom layers. These emission peaks are all within the green region of light thus the OLED will emit green light.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 22–24 of the reply dated 05/22/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 15 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to substitute the green-emitting compounds, taught by Choi, into a blue emissive layer, taught by Yamamoto, as doing so would fundamentally change the emission characteristics of Yamamoto’s device.
Examiner's response – The blue emissive layer is based on Figure 5B, which is just one embodiment taught by Yamamoto. Yamamoto teaches the color of light emitted from an OLED device including an emissive stack of present invention can be any color, including green light [column 12, lines 35–40]. Therefore, all three layers could emit green light. It would have been obvious to use the green emitting compounds taught by Choi possessing the long lifetime and high color purity benefits taught by Choi [0204].
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, 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (Pat. No. US 10,510,973 B2, the US equivalent to CN 105720201 A, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 12/29/2025, hereafter Yamamoto).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5-7, Yamamoto teaches an organic light emitting device comprising a first and second electrode, a first and second stack of emissive layers between the two electrodes, wherein each stack comprises at least one emissive layer with a phosphorescent dopant and at least one emissive layer with a fluorescent dopant ([column 3, lines 55–67] and [column 4, lines 1–51]). This device structure is exemplified in Figure 5B (shown below), wherein the blue emissive layers (B EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6) comprise a fluorescent dopant and the yellow emissive layers (Y EMLs 2 and 5) comprise a phosphorescent dopant.
However, Yamamoto does not teach that the anode is a transparent electrode and the cathode is a reflective electrode. Additionally, the EMLs of the device of Figure 5B emit blue or yellow light, not green light.
Regarding the anode and cathode, Yamamoto teaches the light emitting stack is a very color-stable multiple-layer structure that can be used in bottom emission [column 11, lines10–14]. Additionally, Yamamoto teaches in all the example devices the anode is indium tin oxide (ITO) and the cathode is aluminum [column 15, lines 29–32].
OLED D1 [Figure 3] within the instant specification comprises a first electrode 210 which can be a transparent electrode [0049]. ITO is an example of a transparent electrode, as evidenced in ¶ [0048] – [0050] of the instant specification. Additionally, the second electrode 230 can be formed of aluminum (Al) [0055].
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 the anode be a transparent electrode and have the cathode be a reflective electrode, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Yamamoto according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with color-stable benefits, as taught by Yamamoto. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Regarding the color of the EMLs, Yamamoto teaches a symmetric emissive-layer architecture which comprises three layers wherein the top and bottom layer emit light in the same or similar color region while the middle layer emits light in a different color region than the other two layers [abstract]. Yamamoto defines “same or similar color region” as having a difference in the emission peak of the two layers of less than 10 nm [column 11, lines 40–50]. Additionally, Yamamoto teaches the color of light emitted from an OLED device including an emissive stack of present invention can be any color, including green light [column 12, lines 35–40]. Therefore, Yamamoto teaches a device similar to Figure 5B which emits green light, wherein the top and bottom layers have a certain green emission peak while the middle layer has a green emission peak which is 10 nm outside of the emission peak of the top and bottom layers. These emission peaks are all within the green region of light thus the OLED will emit green light.
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 all the EMLs emit green light, because it would have been choosing between white light, red light, green light, yellow light, or blue light [column 12, lines 38–39], which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a green light emitting OLED possessing the benefits taught by Yamamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising green EMLs having the benefits taught by Yamamoto in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce an OLED which emits green light since Yamamoto teaches the color of the light emitted from the OLED may be any color, including green light. One would be motivated to produce a green OLED based on the color-stable benefits, taught by Yamamoto.
Therefore, the modified device structure of Figure 5B, as described above (hereafter “Device 1”), reads on Applicants’ limitations of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
693
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 5, Device 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation since in the second emitting part, the bottom fluorescent emitting layer (EML 6) is closer to the transparent electrode (anode) in comparison to the middle phosphorescent emitting layer (EML 5).
Per Claim 6, Device 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation since in the first emitting part, the bottom fluorescent emitting layer (EML 3) is closer to the transparent electrode (anode) than the middle phosphorescent emitting layer (EML 2).
Per Claim 7, Device 1 reads on Applicants’ limitation since in the first emitting part, the middle phosphorescent emitting layer (EML 2) is closer to the transparent electrode (anode) than the top fluorescent emitting layer (EML 1).
Claims 4, 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (Pat. No. US 10,510,973 B2) as applied to claims 1, 5–7 above, and further in view of Lamansky et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 4304–4312, hereafter Lamansky).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9-10, Yamamoto teaches Device 1, as discussed above, wherein EMLs 2 and 5 comprise a phosphorescent dopant. Yamamoto further teaches each emissive layer comprises at least one host material and at least one emissive dopant [column 5, lines 45–47].
However, Yamamoto does not disclose the structures of the phosphorescent dopant and the host used in EMLs 2 and 5.
Lamansky teaches highly phosphorescent bis-cyclometalated iridium complexes and their use in organic light emitting diodes. Specifically, Lamansky teaches a device structure comprising an emissive layer wherein CBP is the host material and ppy2Ir(acac) as the phosphorescent dopant [Figure 6]. Lamansky further teaches that using these iridium complexes as dopants in OLEDs results in exceedingly high external and power efficiencies in the green to red spectral region [pg. 4305, paragraph 3].
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 select CBP as a host and ppy2Ir(acac) in EMLs 2 and 5 of Device 1, as shown in Lamansky’s device, based on the teaching of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high external and power efficiencies, as taught by Lamansky.
From the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky, the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 comprise CBP which reads on Applicants’ Formula 1-1 and ppy2Ir(acac) which reads on Applicants’ Formula 3 (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
269
291
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
155
227
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar is an unsubstituted C12 arylene group (biphenylene),
a1–a4 are each 0, so R1–R4 are not required to be present.
PNG
media_image4.png
250
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
282
307
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein:
b1 and b2 are each 0, so R11 and R12 are not required to be present,
R13 and R14 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl).
Per Claim 9, from the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky, the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 comprises CBP which reads on Applicants’ Formula 1-2 (shown below), wherein a1–a6 are each 0, so R1–R6 are not required to be present.
PNG
media_image6.png
215
347
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
155
227
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 10, from the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky, the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 comprises CBP which is identical to Applicants’ Compound H1 of Formula 2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
207
264
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
155
227
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Lamansky teaches the ancillary ligand (acac) can be changed to tmd [Figure 1]. In fact, ppy2Ir(tmd) has a higher phosphorescent quantum efficiency in comparison to ppy2Ir(acac) [Figure 5].
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 ppy2Ir(acac) for ppy2Ir(tmd), based on the teaching of Lamansky. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a dopant with a higher phosphorescent quantum efficiency, as taught by Lamansky.
From the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky, the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 comprise Ir(ppy)2(tmd) which is identical to Applicants’ Compound PD2 of Formula 4 (shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
220
184
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
290
333
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 4, Yamamoto teaches each emissive layer comprises at least one host material and at least one emissive dopant [column 5, lines 45–47]. Yamamoto in view of Lamansky further teaches Device 1 wherein the host material is CBP and the emissive dopant is ppy2Ir(tmd) in the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5).
However, the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky as described above appears silent with respect to the property of “the second compound (emissive dopant) has a ratio of an intensity of the second emission peak to an intensity of the first emission peak is about 0.55 or more and 1 or less”.
The combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky teaches CBP and ppy2Ir(tmd) in the phosphorescent emitting layers, similar to Example 9 of the instant application [00304] wherein compound H1 and compound PD2 are used in the phosphorescent emitting layers. Therefore, the property of “the second compound (emissive dopant) has a ratio of an intensity of the second emission peak to an intensity of the first emission peak is about 0.55 or more and 1 or less” is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), 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.
This inherency is further evidenced by Figure 6B of the instant application wherein PD2 photoluminescence spectrum is displayed (shown below). Figure 6B shows that the 2nd peak’s intensity is about 0.6 in comparison to the 1st peak. Since ppy2Ir(tmd) is identical to PD2, it is expected to have the same photoluminescence spectrum.
PNG
media_image10.png
492
484
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claims 2–3, 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (Pat. No. US 10,510,973 B2) in view of Lamansky et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 4304–4312) as applied to claim 1, 4–11 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0251663 A1, which is the English equivalent of CN 111525039 A, provided in Applicants’ IDS filed on 12/29/2025, hereafter Choi).
Regarding Claims 12–13, Yamamoto teaches Device 1, as discussed above, wherein EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6 comprise a fluorescent dopant. Yamamoto further teaches each emissive layer comprises at least one host material and at least one emissive dopant [column 5, lines 45–47].
However, Yamamoto does not disclose the structures of the fluorescent dopant and the host used in EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6.
Choi teaches an organic electroluminescence device including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer wherein the emission layer comprises a first host, a second host, a first dopant, and a second dopant [0007]. Specifically, Choi teaches Example 5, wherein the emission layer comprises compounds H1-3, H2-7, D1-1, and D2-1 [Table 1]. Choi further teaches the organic electroluminescence device of the present disclosure achieve long life and high color purity [0204].
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 select compounds H1-3, H2-7, D1-1, and D2-1 in EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6 of Device 1, as shown in Choi’s Example 5, based on the teaching of Choi. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with long life and high color purity benefits, as taught by Choi.
From the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi, the fluorescent layers (EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6) of Device 1 comprising Compound H1-3, Compound D1-1, and Compound D2-1 reads on Applicants’ limitations of claim 12 since Compound H1-3 reads on Applicants’ Formula 1-1,
PNG
media_image2.png
269
291
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
190
279
media_image11.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar is an unsubstituted C12 arylene group (biphenylene),
a1–a4 are each 0, so R1–R4 are not required to be present.
Compound D1-1 reads on Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image12.png
157
124
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
179
162
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
307
229
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein:
c1 is 4,
c2–c3 are each 0, so R21 and R22 are not required to be present.
Compound D2-1 reads on Applicants’ Formula 7 (shown below),
PNG
media_image15.png
166
211
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
218
147
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R35 and R36 are each a hydrogen,
R31–R34 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl),
R37 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl).
Per Claim 13, from the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi, the fluorescent layers (EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6) of Device 1 comprising Compound D1-1 reads on Applicants’ limitation since Compound D1-1 and Compound TD1 of Applicants’ Formula 6 are identical (shown below).
PNG
media_image17.png
224
154
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
307
229
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Device 1 of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi as discussed above fail to teach a compound that reads on one of the compounds in the claimed Formula 8.
However, Choi teaches the second dopant may include a compound represented in Compound Group 4, wherein examples thereof include Compound D2-8, among others [0159]. Choi further teaches the organic electroluminescence device of present disclosure may achieve long life and high color purity [0204].
Therefore, given the teachings of Choi, 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 Compound D2-1 with Compound D2-8, because Choi teaches Compound D2-8 may suitably be selected as the second dopant. 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 compound would be useful as a fluorescent dopant in the emissive layer of the device of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi and possess the benefits taught by Choi. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Likewise, 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 Compound D2-8, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable second dopants represented by Compound Group 4 taught by Choi, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a fluorescent dopant in the emissive layer of the device of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi and possessing the benefits taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising second dopants represented by Choi’s Compound Group 4 having the benefits taught by Choi in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
From the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi, the fluorescent layers (EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6) of Device 1 comprising Compound D2-8 reads on Applicants’ limitation since Compound D2-8 and Compound FD1 of Applicants’ Formula 8 are identical (shown below).
PNG
media_image18.png
208
180
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
275
271
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Yamamoto teaches an organic light emitting device exemplified by Device 1 from the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi, as discussed above.
However, Yamamoto does not teach a display device with a pixel area comprising Device 1.
Choi teaches a display device represented by Figure 2, comprising first pixel areas PXA1, second pixel areas PXA2, third pixel areas PXA3, and a nonpixel area NPXA [0053]. PXA1 may be for green light, PXA2 may be for red light, and PXA3 may be for blue light [0056]. Choi teaches an organic electroluminescent device may be included in PXA1, PXA2, and PXA3 [0058]. Choi further teaches the display device of present disclosure may achieve long life and high color purity [0204].
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 Device 1 in each of PXA1, PXA2, and PXA3 of Choi’s display device, wherein PXA1 is for green light, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Yamamoto and Choi according to known methods to yield predictable results of a display device with the long life and high color purity benefits, as taught by Choi. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
From the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi, the fluorescent layers (EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6) of Device 1 as described above comprises Compound D1-1 and Compound D2-1 which reads on Applicants’ limitations of claim 15 since Compound D1-1 reads on Applicants’ Formula 5-1 (shown below),
PNG
media_image12.png
157
124
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
179
162
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
307
229
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein:
c1 is 4,
c2–c3 are each 0, so R21 and R22 are not required to be present.
Compound D2-1 reads on Applicants’ Formula 7 (shown below),
PNG
media_image15.png
166
211
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
218
147
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R35 and R36 are each a hydrogen,
R31–R34 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl),
R37 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl group (phenyl).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 16, and 17, the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi as discussed above teaches an organic light emitting device, Device 1, wherein the fluorescent layers (EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6) of Device 1 comprise Compound H1-3, Compound D1-1, and Compound D2-8, while the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 comprise CBP and Ir(ppy)2(tmd).
However, Device 1, as described above, appears silent with respect to the property of “a photoluminescence spectrum of the fluorescent emitting layer and phosphorescent emitting layer in the first and second emitting parts comprises first and second emission peaks and the wavelength of the second emission peak is longer than the wavelength of the first emission peak, and in the intensity of the second emission peak of the fluorescent emitting layer in the first and second emitting part is smaller than an intensity of the second emission peak of the phosphorescent emitting layer in the first and second emitting part”.
Figure 6B and Figure 6C of the instant application display the photoluminescence spectra of PD2 and FD1, respectively (shown below). Figure 6B shows the phosphorescent dopant has two peaks, while Figure 6C shows the fluorescent dopant has two peaks. Additionally, the 2nd peak of the fluorescent dopant is smaller than the 2nd peak of the phosphorescent dopant. Notably, PD2 is identical to ppy2Ir(tmd) and FD1 is identical to Compound D2-8.
PNG
media_image10.png
492
484
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
494
496
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Therefore, for Device 1 from the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi wherein ppy2Ir(tmd) is used in the phosphorescent emitting layers and Compound D2-8 is used in the fluorescent emitting layers, as described above, the property of “a photoluminescence spectrum of the fluorescent emitting layer and phosphorescent emitting layer in the first and second emitting parts comprises first and second emission peaks and the wavelength of the second emission peak is longer than the wavelength of the first emission peak, and in the intensity of the second emission peak of the fluorescent emitting layer in the first and second emitting part is smaller than an intensity of the second emission peak of the phosphorescent emitting layer in the first and second emitting part” is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), 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.
A display device comprising Device 1 in the green light emitting PXA1 pixel reads on Applicants’ limitations of claims 2, 3, 16, and 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Yamamoto teaches each emissive layer comprises at least one host material and at least one emissive dopant [column 5, lines 45–47]. Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi teaches a display device wherein the host material is CBP and the emissive dopant is ppy2Ir(tmd) in the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 in the green light emitting PXA1 pixel area.
However, the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi, as described above, appears silent with respect to the property of “the second compound (emissive dopant) has a ratio of an intensity of the second emission peak to an intensity of the first emission peak is about 0.55 or more and 1 or less”.
The combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi teaches CBP and ppy2Ir(tmd) in the phosphorescent emitting layers, similar to Example 9 of the instant application [00304] wherein compound H1 and compound PD2 are used in the phosphorescent emitting layers. Therefore, the property of “the second compound (emissive dopant) has a ratio of an intensity of the second emission peak to an intensity of the first emission peak is about 0.55 or more and 1 or less” is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), 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.
This inherency is further evidenced by Figure 6B of the instant application wherein PD2 photoluminescence spectrum is displayed (shown below). Figure 6B shows that the 2nd peak’s intensity is about 0.6 in comparison to the 1st peak. Since ppy2Ir(tmd) is identical to PD2, it is expected to have the same photoluminescence spectrum.
PNG
media_image10.png
492
484
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, a display device from the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi wherein Device 1 is used in the green light emitting PXA1 pixel area reads on Applicants’ limitation since in the second emitting part, the bottom fluorescent emitting layer (EML 6) is closer to the transparent electrode (anode) in comparison to the middle phosphorescent emitting layer (EML 5).
Additionally, in the first emitting part, the bottom fluorescent emitting layer (EML 3) is closer to the transparent electrode (anode) than the middle phosphorescent emitting layer (EML 2).
Regarding Claim 20, a display device from the combination of Yamamoto in view of Lamansky and Choi wherein Device 1 is used in the green light emitting PXA1 pixel area reads on Applicants’ limitation since in the second emitting part, the bottom fluorescent emitting layer (EML 6) is closer to the transparent electrode (anode) in comparison to the middle phosphorescent emitting layer (EML 5).
Additionally, in the first emitting part, the middle phosphorescent emitting layer (EML 2) is closer to the transparent electrode (anode) than the top fluorescent emitting layer (EML 1).
Regarding Claim 21, the display device, as described above, comprising the fluorescent layers (EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6) of Device 1 comprising Compound D1-1 reads on Applicants’ limitation since Compound D1-1 and Compound TD1 of Applicants’ Formula 6 are identical (shown below).
PNG
media_image17.png
224
154
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
307
229
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, the display device, as described above, comprising the fluorescent layers (EMLs 1, 3, 4, and 6) of Device 1 comprising Compound D2-8 reads on Applicants’ limitation since Compound D2-8 and Compound FD1 of Applicants’ Formula 8 are identical (shown below).
PNG
media_image18.png
208
180
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
275
271
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, the display device, as described above, comprising the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 comprise CBP which reads on Applicants’ Formula 1-1 and ppy2Ir(acac) which reads on Applicants’ Formula 3 (shown below),
PNG
media_image2.png
269
291
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
155
227
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
Ar is an unsubstituted C12 arylene group (biphenylene),
a1–a4 are each 0, so R1–R4 are not required to be present.
PNG
media_image4.png
250
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
282
307
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein:
b1 and b2 are each 0, so R11 and R12 are not required to be present,
R13 and R14 are each an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (methyl).
Regarding Claim 24, the display device, as described above, comprising the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 comprises CBP which is identical to Applicants’ Compound H1 of Formula 2 (shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
207
264
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
155
227
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 25, the display device, as described above, comprising the phosphorescent layers (EMLs 2 and 5) of Device 1 comprise Ir(ppy)2(tmd) which is identical to Applicants’ Compound PD2 of Formula 4 (shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
220
184
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
290
333
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights