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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on November 25, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on November 20, 2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 27, 2026 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 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.
As per claims 1, 12 and 16, in the definition for linker L in Chemical Formula 2, L is defined as “L may represent one selected from a group consisting of….” The word “may” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what non-listed options, if any, are allowed for the variable L, since the wording suggests that the list of options is not a closed list.
For examination purposes, L is interpreted as including any element or chemical group.
Claims 2 – 11, 13 – 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1, 12, and 16.
As per claims 1, 5, 9, 12 and 16, the claims all recite language that “at least one hydrogen is.. unsubstituted or substituted with deuterium…” This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is intending to require a substituent or not, since it is presumed that an unsubstituted hydrogen would be hydrogen. Furthermore, the claims all refer to cyclic groups that can be substituted or unsubstituted. Therefore, it is not clear if the substituent is required when the cyclic group is selected to be unsubstituted.
For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as not requiring the substituents when the cyclic groups are unsubstituted.
Claims 2 – 11, 13 – 15, and 17 – 20 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1, 12, and 16.
As per claims 12 and 16, the claims require a first, second and third (as in claim 16) light-emitting stack wherein each of the stacks includes at least one light-emitting layer. The claims then go on to require that “the at least one light-emitting layer is a red phosphorescent light-emitting layer.” This renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the red phosphorescent light-emitting layer as the “at least one light-emitting layer” is referring to any one light-emitting layer within the multiple stacks or if the claims is requiring that each of the light emitting stacks claimed includes at least one red phosphorescent light-emitting layer.
For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted to only require that one of the light-emitting stacks contain a light-emitting layer that is a red phosphorescent light-emitting layer.
Claims 13 – 15, and 17 – 19 are rejected as being dependent on claims 12 and 16.
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 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20200203623A1) in view of Chen (CN108276452A, using the provided English language translation).
As per claims 1, 3, 5 – 9, Lee teaches:
An organic light-emitting diode comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an organic layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes a light-emitting layer, wherein the light-emitting layer includes a dopant material and a host material ([0055]: “The organic element according to an aspect of the present invention comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic material layer formed between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic material layer comprises a phosphorescent light emitting layer, and the host of the phosphorescent light emitting layer comprises a first compound represented by the following Formula 1 and a second compound represented by the following Formula 2.”)
Wherein the host material includes a mixture of a compound represented by a following Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image1.png
202
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches that the phosphorescent host contains a compound represented by Formula 2 ([0055]), wherein Formula 2 is
PNG
media_image2.png
102
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0010]). A particular compound within the scope of Formula 2 taught by Lee is compound 2-85
PNG
media_image3.png
288
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein o, p, q and r are 0 so that R7, Ar, and L do not exist; Ar1 and Ar2 each represent a substituted C6 aryl group. This compound is the same as compound RHH-7 in claim 6.)
And a compound represented by a following Chemical Formula 3
PNG
media_image4.png
168
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Lee teaches that the phosphorescent host contains a compound represented by Formula 1 ([0055]), wherein Formula 1 is
PNG
media_image5.png
200
334
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0010]). A particular compound within the scope of Formula 1 taught by Lee is compound 2-113
PNG
media_image6.png
180
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X is O; each of X11, X12, and X13 are all N as required by claim 7; L1 is a single bond, as required by claim 8; Ar3 and Ar4 are an unsubstituted C6 aryl group, namely a phenyl group as required by claim 9.)
Lee teaches that the light emitting layer is phosphorescent ([0055]). However, Lee does not limit or restrict the phosphorescent dopant used. Lee does not specifically teach:
Wherein the dopant material includes an organometallic compound represented by a following Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image7.png
240
438
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Chen teaches phosphorescent dopants of Formula
PNG
media_image8.png
452
508
media_image8.png
Greyscale
([0012]). This complex reduces the band gap of the material and causes a red-shift in the dopant ([0009]). A particular compound taught by Chen is Ir14
PNG
media_image9.png
188
158
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein M is Ir; R represents a structure connected to X1 and X2 to form a fused ring, and X1 and X2 each independently represent C; each of R1 and R2 represents hydrogen; Y represents S; each o fX3 ot X10 is selected from a group consisting of CR6, where one R6 represents a C3 alkyl group and the remaining R6 groups are hydrogen; m is an integer of 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dopant of the claimed Formula in the device of Lee, based on the desire to predictably produce a OLED containing a phosphorescent dopant with a reduced band gap and red-shift as taught by Chen ([0009]).
As per claim 2, Chen teaches that m is an integer greater than 0. So while the compound above shows m= 2, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select m=1, resulting in a compound wherein n=2, as required by the claim.
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of a reduced band gap and red-shift in the dopant ([0009]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 4, the only difference between the above compound and RD-4
PNG
media_image10.png
242
322
media_image10.png
Greyscale
is the number and length of the alkyl chains on the benzene rings and the acac ligands. However, because Chen does not limit the size or number of the alkyl groups on the ligands in the claimed Formula, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size and number of the alkyl groups in compound Ir 14 and arrive at claimed compound RD-4.
Chen includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Chen being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of a reduced band gap and red-shift in the dopant ([0009]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claims 10, the only difference between compound 2-113 above and REH-2
PNG
media_image11.png
318
358
media_image11.png
Greyscale
is the deuterium substituents on the phenyl rings. However, in compound 1-141, Lee teaches that the aryl substituents of compounds within the scope of Formula 1 can be fully deuterated phenyl ring
PNG
media_image12.png
274
328
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly modify compound 2-113 of Lee to include the deuterium substituents on the phenyl rings and arrive at claimed compound REH-2.
Lee includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Lee being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of lowered driving voltage and increased luminous efficiency and lifetime (Abstract), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 11, Lee teaches:
Wherein the organic layer further includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer ([0032]: “The organic material layer may comprised a hole injection layer 120, a hole transport layer 130, a light emitting layer 140, an electron transport layer 150, and an electron injection layer 160.”)
As per claims 12 – 19, the teachings above with respect to compounds RD-4, RHH-7, and REH-2 are incorporated herein. Lee further teaches that the OLED may contain multiple stacks of light emitting layers ([0038]) and that that device may contain three stacks ([0044]). Lee teaches that when a plurality of light emitting layers are formed in a multi-layer stack, it is possible to manufacture an organic electroluminescent element that emits light of various colors by the mixing effect of light emitted from each light emitting layer ([0045]).
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 red emitting layer of the prior art combination as one light emitting layer in a stack wherein the organic light emitting device contains two or three stacks as claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably manufacture an organic electroluminescent element that emits light of various colors by the mixing effect of light emitted from each light emitting layer as taught by Lee ([0045]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20200203623A1) in view of Chen (CN108276452A, using the provided English language translation) as applied to claims 1 – 19 above and further in view of Shin (US20180166647A1).
As per claim 20, the prior art combination does not teach:
A substrate, a driving element disposed on the substrate, and an organic light-emitting diode disposed on the substrate and connected to the driving element
Shin teaches an OLED display device wherein the OLED is provided on a substrate and there is a driving element connected to the first electrode of the OLED in between the substrate and the light emitting diode (Claim 9).
Shin teaches an OLED on a substrate with a driving element as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the device of the prior art combination on a substrate with a driving element as Shin demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights