DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-19 are amended due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
The objection to the abstract and claims 1-19 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganier et al. EP-3208861-A1 and the rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganier et al. EP-3208861-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made further teachings of Ganier and newly cited Kim et al. US-20170309830-A1.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on page 20 of the reply dated 05/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect the applicant's arguments that the subscripts are apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art in either format. The rejection has been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments bridging pages 20-21 of the reply dated 05/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 16 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 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues that the term "alternative" has been deleted from the claim.
Examiner's response – While it appears that two instances of "alternatively" were deleted from claim 16 due to the applicant's amendment. The claim still contains one "alternative" in addition to both "and/or" and "or" between items in the list, which makes it unclear what items are in the alternative.
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 21-24 of the reply dated 05/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of the claimed under Ganier et al. EP-3208861-A1 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 23-24 that Ganier would not have provided any reason or motivation to modify any of the devices of Table 1 to include a phosphine oxide compound other than compound A18 due to the advantages of the examples comprising A18 described in paragraphs [0346]-[0349]
Examiner's response – While the example devices comprising A18 are described as having advantages, the reference also expressly teaches other examples of the organic phosphine oxide compound including those in paragraph [0187]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select any one of the example organic phosphine oxide compounds specifically recited by Ganier to substitute in the place of A18 in the tandem OLED of Ganier. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 8 appears to lack a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what items are in the alternative.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the charge generation layer comprises a metal, an alkali metal, a metal salt, an alkaline earth metal salt, a rare earth metal salt, an organic alkali metal complex, an alkali metal complex, LiF, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiQ, a metal borate, or mixtures thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganier et al. EP-3208861-A1 (hereinafter "Ganier").
It is noted that Ganier et al. EP-3208861-A1 is cited on the IDS of 12/05/2022.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10-18, Ganier teaches a tandem OLED comprising: an anode electrode, a first emission layer (EML), an n-type charge generation layer (n-type CGL), a p-type charge generation layer (p-type GCL), a second emission layer (EML), a first cathode electrode layer and a second cathode electrode layer (¶ [0319]). The n-type CGL and the p-type GCL correspond to the claimed first charge generation layer and the first cathode electrode layer and the second cathode electrode layer correspond to the claimed cathode. Ganier teaches an electron transport layer stack between the emission layer and the cathode comprising a first electron transport layer and a second electron transport layer (¶ [0006]-[0007]) wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a first organic aromatic matrix compound and the second electron transport layer comprises the first organic aromatic matrix compound and a polar organic aromatic phosphine compound (¶ [0006]). Ganier teaches wherein the first organic aromatic matrix compound has the formula (5) (¶ [0133]), or formula (400) (¶ [0146]) and may be selected from compounds ETM1-1 to ETM1-37 in Table 1 (¶ [0151], Table 1). Ganier discloses wherein the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound has the Formula 1a (¶ [0168]) and may be selected from compounds A1 to A27 (¶ [0187]). Ganier teaches wherein the n-type charge generation layer can be composed of metal or organic material doped with n-type, wherein the metal can be one selected from a group consisting of Li (¶ [0265]). Ganier teaches a display or lighting panel comprising the organic light-emitting diode (¶ [0371]). Additionally, Ganier teaches the device has the beneficial properties of very low operating voltages and/or high external quantum efficiency EQE and/or very long lifetime (¶ [0071]).
Ganier discloses of the OLED in Examples 1-3 wherein the first electron transport layer is formed of the first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1, ETM1-32, and ETM1-15, respectively (¶ [0324] and TABLE 7), the second electron transport layer is formed of the first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1, ETM1-32, and ETM1-15, respectively, and the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound A18 (¶ [0325] and TABLE 7).
Ganier does not specifically disclose a device as claimed wherein the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound is other than A18. However, as discussed above, Ganier discloses wherein the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound may be selected from compounds A1 to A27, which includes compound A21
PNG
media_image1.png
211
215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 46).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Ganier, 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 polar organic aromatic phosphine compound A18 in the devices described above in with compound A21, because Ganier teaches the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound may suitably be selected as such . 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 modified compound would be useful as the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound in the electron transport layer of the device of Ganier and possess the beneficial properties of very low operating voltages and/or high external quantum efficiency EQE and/or very long lifetime taught by Ganier. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Ganier teaches first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1 having a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
140
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(TABLE 1), which is a compound of the claimed Formula (I) wherein:
a and b are each 1;
c is 1;
Ar1 is C14 aryl substituted with C6 aryl group (an anthracenyl group substituted with a phenyl group);
A is a C6 aryl (a phenylene group); and
X is C10 aryl (a naphthyl group).
Ganier discloses the first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1 having a dipole moment of between 0 and 2.5 Debye, which falls within the claimed range of 0 to 4 Debye.
Ganier discloses first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-32 having a structure of
PNG
media_image3.png
171
276
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(TABLE 1, page 28), which is a compound of the claimed Formula (I) wherein:
a and b are each 1;
c is 2;
Ar1 is C14 aryl substituted with C6 aryl group (a phenyl group substituted with phenyl groups);
A is a C6 aryl (a phenylene group); and
X is C10 aryl (a triazinyl group substituted with phenyl groups).
Ganier discloses the first organic aromatic matrix compound ETM1-1 having a dipole moment of between 0 and 2.5 Debye, which falls within the claimed range of 0 to 4 Debye.
Additionally, ETM1-32 is a compound (III) having 9 aromatic and 1 heteroaromatic ring.
Ganier discloses the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound A21 having the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
211
215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 46)
PNG
media_image4.png
157
186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 48), which is a compound of the claimed Formula (II) wherein:
m is 1 and n is 1;
k is 1;
Ar2 is a C14 aryl group (an anthracenyl group) with is substituted with two C10 aryl groups (naphthyl groups);
Z is a C6 aryl group (a phenylene group);
G is such that G-phenyl has the structure
PNG
media_image5.png
117
137
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Ganier appears silent with respect to the property of wherein the dipole moment of a compound G-phenyl
PNG
media_image5.png
117
137
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is between 1 and 7 Debye.
The instant specification recites that the dipole moment of compound
PNG
media_image5.png
117
137
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is 4.19 D (specification Table 2, page 22). Since Ganier teaches the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound of Formula (II) where G is such that G-phenyl has the structure
PNG
media_image5.png
117
137
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the property of wherein the dipole moment of a compound G-phenyl is between 1 and 7 Debye 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.
Therefore, the modified device of Ganier meets claims 1-8 and 10-18.
Regarding claim 9, Ganier discloses the device as described with respect to claim 1.
Ganier does not specifically exemplify a device as discussed above wherein the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound is one selected from claimed compounds B-1 to B-25. For example, the compound A21
PNG
media_image1.png
211
215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 46) differs from the claimed compound B-3
PNG
media_image6.png
195
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in that the positions corresponding to R1 and R2 in Ganier's Formula (Ia) are phenyl groups instead of methyl groups. However, Ganier teaches that R1 and R2 of Formula (Ia) may be C1 alkyl groups, C6 aryl groups, among others (¶ [0168]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Ganier, 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 two C6 aryl groups (phenyl groups) at the positions corresponds to the R1 and R2 of Formula (Ia) with C1 alkyl groups (methyl groups), because Ganier teaches the variable may suitably be selected as such. 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 modified compound would be useful as the polar organic aromatic phosphine compound in the second electron transport layer of the device of Ganier and possess the beneficial properties of very low operating voltages and/or high external quantum efficiency EQE and/or very long lifetime, as described above taught by Ganier. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The modified device of Ganier corresponds to the claimed compound B-3.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US-20170309830-A1 (hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches an organic optoelectric device comprising a compound for an organic optoelectric device represented by Chemical Formula I (¶ [0011], ¶ [0021]). Kim teaches the organic optoelectric device as having high efficiency and long life-span (¶ [0023]). Kim teaches examples of the compound represented by Chemical Formula I in paragraph [008] including compound 3
PNG
media_image7.png
100
241
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 11).
Kim does not specifically disclose a compound having a structure according to the Formula A11, A12, A14, A16, A18, A22, A25, or A27. However, the compound 3 is a positional isomer of the claimed compound A18 and the positional isomer is also encompassed by Kim's general formula. Additionally, Kim teaches that L in Kim's general formula may be either a para-phenylene or a meta-phenylene, among others (¶ [0084]).
Given the general formula and teachings of Kim, 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 compound 3 wherein the position corresponding to L in Kim's general formula is a para-phenylene instead of a meta-phenylene. One of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Chemical Formula I in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful in the device of Kim and possess the beneficial properties of high efficiency and long life-span as taught by Kim. 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 compound corresponds to the claimed compound A18
PNG
media_image8.png
184
309
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: SENKOVSKYY et al. EP-3182478-A1 discloses an organic light emitting diode comprising an n-type CGL, a p-type CGL and an ETL stack, wherein the ETL stack comprises a first electron transport layer comprising a first organic matrix compound selected from organic phosphine compound and a second electron transport layer comprising a second organic matrix compound (¶ [0231]).
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 Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights