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, 5, 7, and 12 are amended due to Applicant's amendment dated 07/15/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the drawings as set forth in the previous Office Action is overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 07/15/2026.
The objection to claims 7-8 as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant's amendment dated 07/15/2026. The objection is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language.
The rejection of claims 5-6 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 is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 7, and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 3, 5-6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Kim (English translation of WO 2016068458 A obtained from Global Dossier) is not overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/15/2026. The rejection is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Adamovich (US 2007/0247061 A1) and Yoo (Yoo, Seung II, et al. “Improvement of efficiency roll-off in blue phosphorescence OLED using double dopants emissive layer.” Journal of Luminescence 160 (2015): 346-350.) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok in view of Kim ‘451 (US 2015/0311451 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 07/15/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-15 of the reply dated 07/15/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that Seok fails to teach the newly added limitation of claim 1 which requires “a light emitting layer and an efficiency-improving layer in contact with the light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer in contact with the efficiency-improving layer”.
Examiner's response –The newly amended claim 1 does not require the efficiency-improving layer to be in contact with the light emitting layer. Rather, the amended claim 1 requires “an efficiency-improving layer between the first electrode and the second electrode”. As shown by Seok’s Fig. 1 and explained in the rejection below, Seok’s second blue light emitting layer (the efficiency-improving layer) is located between an anode and cathode, and is directly contacting an electron transport layer. However, even if claim 1 did require the limitation of a light emitting layer and an efficiency-improving layer in contact with each other, it should be noted that claim 1 does not limit the type of contact between the layers. That is, claim 1 allows for the light emitting layer and an efficiency-improving layer to be in electrical contact. Accordingly, as Seok’s first and second blue light emitting layers are provided within the same device, they are considered in electrical contact and would therefore read on the limitation of “an efficiency-improving layer in contact with the light emitting layer”.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that Seok fails to teach a claimed second host having bipolarity while not comprising an anthracene derivative.
Examiner's response –As discussed in greater detail in the rejection below, while Seok alone fails to teach the claimed second host, Seok in view of Xiong, Kim, and Kim ‘659 teach chemical formula 13a, which is a bipolar host that does not comprise an anthracene derivative. Accordingly, the cited references read on the claims as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the first blue emitting dopant” and “the second blue emitting dopant” whereas claim 8 recites “the first blue emitting dopant” and “the second blue light emitting dopant”. For consistency and ease of reading, it is recommended in both claims 7-8 to refer to the dopants as either “the first blue emitting dopant” and “the second blue emitting dopant” or “the first blue light emitting dopant” and “the second blue light emitting dopant”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the newly added amendment wherein the efficiency-improving layer comprises a second host having bipolarity while not comprising an anthracene derivative. While the instant specification recites the second host may be formed of a single compound including any one of a triazine- and a pyrimidine-based group, and at least one of a carbazole-, a spirofluorene-, and a dibenzofuran-based group wherein examples thereof include compounds LIH1 to LIH55 (instant ¶ [0041] and [0047]-[0051]), the instant specification fails to either positively or negatively recite an anthracene derivative for the second host. Similarly, the instant specification fails to either positively or negative recite an anthracene derivative in the efficiency-improving layer. Accordingly, the instant specification does not provide sufficient support to exclude anthracene derivatives from either the second host or the efficiency-improving layer. For this reason, claim 1 is considered to have new matter.
Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the newly added amendment wherein the efficiency-improving layer comprises a second host having bipolarity while not comprising an anthracene derivative. It is unclear if this limitation is requiring the efficiency-improving layer to not comprise an anthracene derivative or if the limitation is requiring the second host to not comprise an anthracene derivative. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the second host does not include an anthracene derivative.
Claim 1 recites the newly added amendment of “a first unit between the first electrode and the second electrode, the first unit comprising a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, an efficiency-improving layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, the first unit, and an electron transport layer in contact with the efficiency-improving layer”. It is unclear what is meant by the underlined recitation of “the first unit” as it appears to suggest the first unit comprises the first unit. For purposes of examination, the underlined recitation of “the first unit” will be interpreted as not present.
Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependency upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1) in view of Xiong (US 2023/0345832 A1), Kim (English translation of WO 2016068458 A obtained from Global Dossier), and Kim ‘659 (US 2013/0292659 A1), supporting information provided by Isobe (US 2007/0116981 A1) and Stengel (US 2022/0045277 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, and 10-12, Seok teaches an organic light emitting diode according to Fig. 1 including an anode 110, a region (first unit) including a hole transport layer 155, a first blue light emitting layer (140, light emitting layer) and a second blue light emitting layer (170, efficiency-improving layer), an electron transport layer 173, an electron injection layer 175, and a cathode 180 (abstract; ¶ [0012] and [0102]-[0103]). Both of the blue light emitting layers include a first host bh1 (first host), a second host bh2 (second host), and a blue dopant, wherein bh1 is an anthracene derivative and bh2 includes anthracene as a core and dibenzofuran as a terminal group (¶ [0098]-[0099]). The organic light emitting diode obtains increased luminous efficiency, and more specifically, the blue light efficiency of the device is increased owing to the composition of hosts in the blue light emitting layers (¶ [0123] and [0135]). Accordingly, the second blue light emitting layer may be considered an efficiency-improving layer.
Seok fails to teach the blue dopants of the blue light emitting layers are boron-based. However, Seok does not limit the structure of the blue dopants.
Xiong teaches a fluorescent material having a specific structural formula which provides a device with high luminous efficiency (abstract; ¶ [0006]). The fluorescent materials of Xiong emit blue light (¶ [0038]).
Xiong’s structural formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
188
287
media_image1.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 use fluorescent materials of Xiong’s structural formula as the blue dopants in the blue light emitting layers, based on the teaching of Xiong. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with high luminous efficiency, as taught by Xiong.
As shown by the structure above, Xiong’s fluorescent materials are boron-based.
Seok fails to teach a third host in the blue light emitting layers.
Kim teaches an organic electroluminescent device including a light-emitting layer comprising a first host, a second host, and a third host, wherein the three hosts are different materials (¶ [7]). Such a device obtains improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan compared to a device including a light emitting layer to which one or two hosts are applied (¶ [10]).
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 provide a third host in each of the blue light emitting layers, based on the teaching of Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved driving voltage, luminous efficiency, and lifespan, as taught by Kim.
Seok in view of Kim fails to teach the third host has the structure of one of the claimed LIH1 to LIH55.
Kim ‘659 teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 for use as a host in an emission layer of an organic optoelectronic device, wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 provides the device with improved life-span characteristics and high luminous efficiency (abstract; ¶ [0040]). Examples of compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 include chemical formula 13a (pg. 7).
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 a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as the third host, based on the teaching of Kim ‘659. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved life-span characteristics and high luminous efficiency, as taught by Kim ‘659.
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 select chemical formula 13a as the third host, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Chemical Formula 1 and taught by Kim ‘659, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as a host in the blue light emitting layers of the device of Seok in view of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim ‘659. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising hosts represented by Chemical Formula 1 of Kim ‘659 having the benefits taught by Kim ‘659 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As shown on page 7 of Kim ‘659, chemical formula 13a is identical to the claimed LIH54 and thus comprises a triazine-based group and a carbazole-based group (claims 3 and 10). Carbazole is a hole-transporting group and triazine is an electron transport group (claim 2). Accordingly, bh2 is a bipolar compound that does not include anthracene.
Per claims 5-6, Seok in view of Xiong, Kim, and Kim ‘659 appear silent with respect to the difference between a singlet excitation level and a triplet excitation level of LIH54, the triplet excitation level of LIH54, and the energy band gap of LIH54.
The instant specification recites that the second host (LIH) has a difference between a singlet excitation level and a triplet excitation level of 0.01 eV to 0.3 eV, a triplet excitation level of 2.7 eV to 3.4 eV, and an energy band gap of not less than 2.7 eV (instant ¶ [0045]-[0046]). The instant specification teaches LIH54 is an example of the second host LIH (instant ¶ [0048]).
Since Kim ‘659 teaches chemical formula 13a, the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the difference between a singlet excitation level and a triplet excitation level being 0.01 eV to 0.3 eV, a triplet excitation level being 2.7 eV to 3.4 eV, and an energy band gap being not less than 2.7 eV 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.
Per claim 11, the organic light emitting diode further comprises charge generation layers and units comprising red light emitting layers and green light emitting layers, which are provided between the blue light emitting layers and the cathode (¶ [0026] and [0057]; Fig. 1).
Per claim 12, Seok teaches an organic light emitting diode display device having the organic light emitting diode according to Fig. 1 on a substrate 100, wherein the organic light emitting diode is connected to a driving thin film transistor provided in the first to third regions (subpixels) SP1 to SP3 (¶ [0121]). As shown in Fig. 8, the substrate 100 comprises the plurality of subpixels SP1 to SP3 and each of the subpixels comprises a thin film transistor (TFT), wherein the TFT is connected to the organic light emitting diode.
Regarding claim 7, Seok in view of Xiong, Kim, and Kim ‘659 teach the organic light emitting diode including two blue light emitting layers each including a fluorescent material represented by Xiong’s structural formula, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seok in view of Xiong, Kim, and Kim ‘659 fail to specifically teach the blue light emitting layers include the same fluorescent material. However, Xiong teaches examples of the fluorescent material include the Target compound 1 (¶ [0051]).
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 Xiong’s Target compound 1 as the blue dopant for each of the blue light emitting layers, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Xiong’s structural formula and taught by Xiong, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the blue dopant in the blue light emitting layers of the device of Seok and possessing the benefits taught by Xiong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Xiong’s fluorescent materials having the benefits taught by Xiong in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As shown in Table 1 of Xiong, Target compound 1 has a peak wavelength of 455 nm (pg. 12).
Regarding claim 8, Seok in view of Xiong, Kim, and Kim ‘659 teach the organic light emitting diode including two blue light emitting layers each including a fluorescent material represented by Xiong’s structural formula, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seok in view of Xiong, Kim, and Kim ‘659 fail to specifically teach the blue light emitting layers include different dopants. However, Xiong teaches examples of the fluorescent material include Target compound 2 and Target compound 3 (¶ [0058]-[0059] and [0064]-[0065]).
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 Xiong’s Target compound 3 as the blue dopant for the first blue light emitting layer and Xiong’s Target compound 2 as the blue dopant for the second blue light emitting layer, because it would have been choosing from a list of exemplified compounds represented by Xiong’s structural formula and taught by Xiong, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the blue dopant in the blue light emitting layers of the device of Seok and possessing the benefits taught by Xiong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Xiong’s fluorescent materials having the benefits taught by Xiong in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As shown in Table 1 of Xiong, Target compound 3 has a peak wavelength of 463 nm, a singlet energy of 2.68 eV and a triplet energy of 2.60 eV and Target compound 2 has a peak wavelength of 460 nm, a singlet energy of 2.70 eV and a triplet energy of 2.65 eV (pg. 12).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1) in view of Xiong (US 2023/0345832 A1), Kim (English translation of WO 2016068458 A obtained from Global Dossier), and Kim ‘659 (US 2013/0292659 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Seok in view of Xiong, Kim, and Kim ‘659 teach the organic light emitting diode including two blue light emitting layers, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seok teaches the first and second blue light emitting layers each have a thickness of 300-350 Å, the electron transport layer has a thickness of 300 Å, and the electron injection layer has a thickness of 30 Å (¶ [0102]-[0103]).
Together the combination of the electron transport layer and the electron injection layer read on the claimed electron transport layer and thus has a thickness of 330 Å.
Seok fails to teach the thickness of the first blue light emitting layer is greater than the thickness of the second blue light emitting layer. However, as discussed above, the first and second blue light emitting layers each have a thickness of 300-350 Å (¶ [0088]).
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 a thickness of 310 Å for the first blue light emitting layer and to select a thickness of 300 Å for the second blue light emitting layer, because it would have been choosing thicknesses within the range taught by Seok, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a thickness for the blue light emitting layers of the device of Seok and possessing the benefits taught by Seok. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices having the benefits taught by Seok in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Accordingly, the first blue light emitting layer has a thickness of 310 Å, the second blue light emitting layer has a thickness of 300 Å, and the combination of the electron transport layer and the electron injection layer (claimed electron transport layer) has a thickness of 330 Å.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (US 2020/0006692 A1) in view of Xiong (US 2023/0345832 A1), Kim (English translation of WO 2016068458 A obtained from Global Dossier), and Kim ‘659 (US 2013/0292659 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim ‘451 (US 2015/0311451 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Seok in view of Xiong, Kim, and Kim ‘659 teach the organic light emitting diode including a hole transport layer, a first blue light emitting layer, and a second blue light emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Seok fails to teach an electron blocking layer.
Kim ‘451 teaches an electron blocking layer (EBL) may be included between an emission layer (EML) and a hole transport layer (HTL) of an organic light-emitting device as the EBL may help to improve the lifespan of the device (¶ [0130]).
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 provide an electron blocking layer between the hole transport layer and the blue light emitting layers, based on the teaching of Kim ‘451. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the lifespan of the device, as taught by Kim ‘451.
Accordingly, the electron blocking layer is in at least electrical contact with the first blue light emitting layer on one surface, and the second blue light emitting layer is in at least electrical contact with the opposite surface of the first blue light emitting layer.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights