Organic Light-Emitting Diode

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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Response to Amendment The amendment of 23 July 2026 has been entered. Disposition of claims: Claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, 15, 19, and 21 have been amended. Claims 6, 10, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-22 are pending. The replacement specification has partially overcome the objection to the specification set forth in the last Office action. The objections to the paragraphs described below have been maintained. The amendments to claims 10-11 and 21 have overcome the objections to these claims set forth in the last Office action. These objections have been withdrawn. The amendment to claim 19 has overcome the rejections of claims 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2008/0074038 A1) (hereafter “Kim”) as evidenced by Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), Lin et al. (US 2002/0107405 A1) (hereafter “Lin”), Okamoto (US 2012/0305898 A1) (hereafter “Okamoto”), and Royster, JR. et al. (US 2009/0309487 A1) (hereafter “Royster”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejection has been withdrawn. The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 6-9 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 15 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao ‘491”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”), Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao ‘491”), and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 6-9 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejections of claims 15 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao ‘491”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”), Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao ‘491”), and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) set forth in the last Office action 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. Applicant's arguments filed 23 July 2026 regarding the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”) set forth in the last Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No argument is provided. The claim is obvious over the cited references for the reasons outlined below. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas in paragraphs [00191], [00194], [00198], and [00201] have poor resolution and are difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The structural formulas of these claims have poor resolution and are difficult to read. 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. 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. Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and as evidenced by Lee et al. (US 2019/0131557 A1) (hereafter “Lee”). Regarding claim 19: Kim ‘352 discloses an organic light-emitting device comprising a first electrode; a second electrode facing the first electrode; and a light emitting stack disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}. The light-emitting stack includes an organic layer, which includes a hole transport layer and a light-emitting layer {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}. The hole transport layer includes a hole transport material {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}. The light-emitting layer includes the two host materials shown below {(paragraphs [0107]-[0113]: The host materials are TCTA and B3PYMPM.), (paragraph [0054]: Compounds TCTA and B3PYMPM)}. PNG media_image1.png 614 646 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 430 634 media_image2.png Greyscale Lee evidences that B3PYMPM has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 6.7 eV and an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.8 eV {paragraph [0079]}. Liao evidences that TCTA has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.43 eV and an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 1.88 eV {paragraph [0167]}. The device of Kim ‘352 additionally comprises an electron transfer layer {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}. The hole transport layer consists of TCTA, and the electron transfer layer consists of B3PYMPM {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}. Kim ‘352 does not teach a specific device comprising a red light-emitting dopant in the light-emitting layer. Kim ‘352 teaches that the light-emitting dopant is Ir(ppy)3 {paragraphs [0107]-[0113]}. Liao teaches Ir(piq)3 as a light-emitting dopant that is an alternative to Ir(ppy)3 {paragraph [0222]}. Ju teaches that Irpiq3 is a red light emitting dopant {paragraph [0031]}. Liao teaches that Ir(piq)3 has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of 5.24 eV; an absolute value of the LUMO energy level of 2.63 eV; and a triplet energy of 2.12 eV {paragraph [0187]}. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Kim ‘352 by using Ir(piq)3 as the light-emitting dopant in place of Ir(ppy)3, based on the teaching of Liao and Ju. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a red light emitting device, based on the teaching of Liao and Ju. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-18 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”) is a representation of the closest prior art. None of the cited references teach compounds selected from a group consisting of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3. Park et al. (US 2022/0209139 A1) (hereafter “Park”) teaches compounds that meet the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3. However, Park does not teach that the compounds of Park are useful as charge scavengers. Furthermore, Park does not elucidate the HOMO energy levels or triplet energy levels of the compounds. Thus, it is not clear that the compounds of Park could be used as non-emissive dopants in a light-emitting device having the structure of Kim ‘352 based on the teaching of Adamovich, because both the teachings of Kim ‘352 and Adamovich require specific HOMO energy level relationships and triplet energy relationships with the materials of Kim ‘352 and Adamovich. Park is representative of the prior art in that the prior art does not teach compounds that meet the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3 in addition to their HOMO and triplet energy levels in a way that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to predictably combine a compound meeting the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3 with Kim ‘352 and Adamovich.. Claims 20-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined above, over Kim et al. (US 2015/0069352 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘352”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2009/0191427 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) and Ju et al. (US 2005/0112403 A1) (hereafter “Ju”), and further in view of Adamovich et al. (US 2007/0247061 A1) (hereafter “Adamovich”) is a representation of the closest prior art. None of the cited references teach compounds selected from a group consisting of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3. Park et al. (US 2022/0209139 A1) (hereafter “Park”) teaches compounds that meet the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3. However, Park does not teach that the compounds of Park are useful as charge scavengers. Furthermore, Park does not elucidate the HOMO energy levels, triplet energy levels, or emission spectra of the compounds. Thus, it is not clear that the compounds of Park could be used as non-emissive dopants in a light-emitting device having the structure of Kim ‘352 based on the teaching of Adamovich, because both the teachings of Kim ‘352 and Adamovich require specific HOMO energy level relationships and triplet energy relationships with the materials of Kim ‘352 and Adamovich. Park is representative of the prior art in that the prior art does not teach compounds that meet the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3 in addition to their HOMO and triplet energy levels in a way that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to predictably combine a compound meeting the limitations of the instant Chemical Formula 2-1, the instant Chemical Formula 2-2, or the instant Chemical Formula 2-3 with Kim ‘352 and Adamovich. Furthermore, it is not clear that absent knowledge of the triplet energy level or emission spectrum, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the compounds of Park with a red-light emitting dopant as an additional dopant. Such a combination would not be predictable absent additional teachings. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain). 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. /DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786