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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on July 23, 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 13 and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 17 – 21 have been cancelled.
Claim 26 has been added.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 16, and 22 – 26 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed July 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the office action filed April 28, 2026. Claims 5, 7, 12, and 17 – 21 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 4, 6 – 10, and 17 – 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang as set forth in the office action filed April 28, 2026. Claims 7, and 17 – 21 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as set forth in the office action filed April 28, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 5 and 11 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and further in view of Jang as set forth in the office action filed April 28, 2026. Claims 5 and 12 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed July 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and further in view of Jang as set forth in the office action filed April 28, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 16, and 22 – 26 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in multiple places “are each independently be,” and “are optionally be bonded.” The word “be” in both of these phrases is grammatically incorrect and should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 – 4, 8 – 10, 22, and 24 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20200388791A1) in view of Jang (US20200161563A1).
As per claims 1 – 4 and 8 – 10, Zhang teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, and a capping layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a first emitter, the first emitter is configured to emit a first light having a first emission spectrum (Abstract: “The organic electroluminescent device has: a substrate layer; a first electrode, the first electrode being located on the substrate; an organic light-emitting functional layer, the organic light-emitting functional layer being located on the first electrode; a second electrode, the second electrode being located on the organic light-emitting functional layer; and the capping layer, the capping layer being located on the side of the organic electroluminescent device where light is emitted, wherein the capping layer comprises an organic compound.”)
The capping layer is in a path on which the first light travels (As the capping layer is on top of the light emitting device, it is interpreted as being in a path on which the first light travels as claimed.)
The capping layer comprises an amine-free compound represented by Formula 8-1
PNG
media_image1.png
212
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Zhang teaches that the organic compound in the capping layer is a compound of General Formula (1)
PNG
media_image2.png
102
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0054]). A particular compound taught by Zhang within the scope of General Formula (1) is compound (54)
PNG
media_image3.png
270
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0073]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar1 – Ar3 and Z3 are each an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group and Z1 and Z2 are an unsubstituted C7 heterocyclic group; r4x1 to x3 are an integer of 1; Ar4 to Ar6 are all N.)
The value of CIEy to refractive index (RCR value) of the first light extracted to the outside through the capping layer is 36 to 38 and the RCR value is calculated according to Equation 1: CIEy/R(cap) x 100, wherein CIEy is the y coordinate value of the CIE color coordinates of the first light extracted to the outside through the capping layer, and R(cap) is the refractive index of the amine-free compound with respect to a second light having a wavelength of the emission peak wavelength of the first light ± 20 nm (Compound (54) of Zhang has a refractive index value of 1.988 at 525 nm, as shown in Table 1 ([0075]). The green light CIEy values in Table 2 ([0158]) have a value between 0.725 – 0.728. Therefore, the RCR value can be calculated to be between 36.4 – 36.6, which falls within the claimed range.)
Zhang teaches that the dopant is not particularly limited ([0111]). Zhang does not teach:
The first emitter comprises an iridium compound represented by Formula 1A-1
PNG
media_image4.png
370
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jang teaches iridium-based phosphorescent dopants of Chemical Formula 4
PNG
media_image5.png
200
310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0010]). Jang teaches specific compounds such as E-2
PNG
media_image6.png
154
298
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0216]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein n is 1, Y26 is N and the remaining Y atoms are C(W) where W is hydrogen. In Table 1, Jang teaches that phosphorescent dopants of Chemical Formula 4 greatly improve lifespan and efficiency ([0235]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the OLED of Zhang with a green phosphorescent dopant, such as those of Formula 4 of Jang, motivated by the desire to predictably increase the life-span and efficiency of the resulting device as taught by Jang ([0235]).
Regarding the emission peak wavelength, the full width at half maximum, and the light color in claims 2 – 4, Jang is silent with respect to the claimed properties. However, since Jang teaches the same structure, i.e. GD-2 in the instant specification, as disclosed by the Applicant, the properties of emission peak wavelength, the full width at half maximum, and the light color are 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.
As per claim 22, Zhang teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device (As an OLED is an electronic apparatus, Zhang meets the claimed limitations.)
As per claims 24 and 25, Zhang teaches:
A consumer product comprising the light-emitting device, wherein the consumer product is selected from among… computer monitors… ([0132]: “The organic electroluminescent device containing the capping layer prepared by the compound of the disclosure can be used in the field of OLED illumination and display, particularly, can be used in the field of… display screens of computer fields, such as home and commercial computers (PC/workstations and the like)…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of Zhang in a computer monitor as claimed because Zhang teaches that computer monitors were known as predictably suitable uses for OLEDS ([0132]).
As per claim 26, Jang teaches another compound, E-26
PNG
media_image7.png
194
318
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0235]). The compound contains C1 alkyl groups substituted with deuterium in the W12 and W25 positions as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the OLED of Zhang with a green phosphorescent dopant, such as those of Formula 4 of Jang, motivated by the desire to predictably increase the life-span and efficiency of the resulting device as taught by Jang ([0235]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20200388791A1) in view of Jang (US20200161563A1) as applied to claims 1 – 4, 8 – 10, 22, and 24 – 26 above and further in view of Jang 2 (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 23, Zhang does not teach:
The electronic apparatus further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof
Jang 2 teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang 2 teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang 2 also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of Zhang because Jang 2 demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 16, 22, and 24 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US20200161563A1) in view of Hyun (US20230150992A1).
As per claims 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 16, Jang teaches:
A light-emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer, wherein the emission layer comprises a first emitter, the first emitter is configured to emit a first light having a first emission spectrum (Abstract: “Disclosed are an organic optoelectronic device includes an anode and a cathode facing each other and an organic layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the organic layer includes at least one of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer, and an electron transport layer, and the light emitting layer includes a first host, a second host, and a phosphorescent dopant represented by Chemical Formula 4.”)
The first emitter comprises an iridium compound represented by Formula 1A-1
PNG
media_image4.png
370
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Jang teaches iridium-based phosphorescent dopants of Chemical Formula 4
PNG
media_image5.png
200
310
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0010]). Jang teaches specific compounds such as E-2
PNG
media_image6.png
154
298
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0216]). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein n is 1, Y26 is N and the remaining Y atoms are C(W) where W is hydrogen. This compound is the same as compound GD-2 in claim 11.)
Jang does not teach:
A capping layer, where the capping layer is in a path on which the first light travels
The capping layer comprises an amine-free compound represented by Formula 8-1
PNG
media_image8.png
302
632
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Hyun teaches an organic light emitting compounds represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image9.png
242
298
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0008]). A particular compound taught by Hyun is compound 1
PNG
media_image10.png
228
234
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0038]). Hyun teaches that by using a capping layer with a compound of Formula 1 in an OLED, the device provides improved efficiency and lowered driving voltage ([0001]). Compound 1 reads on claimed Formula 8-2 wherein Ar3 is an unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group; Z1 and Z2 are both an unsubstituted C7 heterocyclic group and Z3 is an unsubstituted C10 carbocyclic group; x1 and x2 are 0 and x3 are 1; Ar7 is a single bond. This compound is the same as compound 28 in claim 11. As the capping layer is on top of the light emitting device, it is interpreted as being in a path on which the first light travels as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a capping layer on the device of Jang, wherein the capping layer contains a compound of the claimed Formula, motivated by the desire to predictably improve the device performance by lowering the driving voltage and improving the efficiency as taught by Hyun ([0001]).
Regarding the emission peak wavelength, the full width at half maximum, and the light color in claims 2 – 4 and 13 – 15, Jang is silent with respect to the claimed properties. However, since Jang teaches the same structure, i.e. GD-2 in the instant specification, as disclosed by the Applicant, the properties of emission peak wavelength, the full width at half maximum, and the light color are 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.
Regarding the RCR value, R(cap) value, and the refractive index value in claims 1, 9, 10, and 16, Hyun is silent with respect to the claimed properties. However, since Hyun teaches the same structure, i.e. compound 28 in the instant specification, as disclosed by the Applicant, the properties of RCR value, R(cap) value, and the refractive index value are considered to be inherent (and ould 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.
As per claim 22, Jang teaches:
An electronic apparatus comprising the light-emitting device (As an OLED is an electronic apparatus, Jang meets the claimed limitations.)
As per claims 24 and 25, Jang teaches:
A consumer product, comprising the light emitting device, selected from among a flat panel display ([0009]: “Another embodiment provides a display device including the organic optoelectronic device.’
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED of the prior art combination in any type of display, such as the claimed flat panel display because Zhang teaches that displays were known as predictably suitable uses for OLEDS ([0009]).
As per claim 26, Jang teaches another compound, E-26
PNG
media_image7.png
194
318
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0235]). The compound contains C1 alkyl groups substituted with deuterium in the W12 and W25 positions as claimed.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US20200161563A1) in view of Hyun (US20230150992A1) as applied to claims 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 16, 22, and 24 – 26 above and further in view of Jang 2 (US20150188083A1).
As per claim 23, the prior art combination does not teach:
The electronic apparatus further comprising a color filter, a color conversion layer, a touch screen layer, a polarizing layer, or any combination thereof
Jang 2 teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising an organic light emitting diode (Abstract). Jang 2 teaches that these devices include sub-pixels that can comprise a conversion layer to convert white light into red, green and blue light ([0009]). Jang 2 also teaches that the structure can comprise color filters in the respective pixel regions of the substrate (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed color filter or color conversion layer on the OLED of the prior art combination because Jang 2 demonstrates that this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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 on (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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
