DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 11/10/25.
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 rejection of Claims 2, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2013/0277656 A1) in view of Hamada et al. (US 2014/0034929 A1) as evidenced by Takemura et al. (US 2012/0217486 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/12/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-20, and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2013/0277656 A1) in view of Hamada et al. (US 2014/0034929 A1) as evidenced by Takemura et al. (US 2012/0217486 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 08/12/25 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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:
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.
7. Claims 1, 4-10, 13-19, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2013/0277656 A1) in view of Hamada et al. (US 2014/0034929 A1) as evidenced by Takemura et al. (US 2012/0217486 A1).
Seo et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting element) comprising a pair of electrodes, interposed therein a hole-transporting layer and a light-emitting layer; the light-emitting layer comprises an electron-transporting first organic compound, a hole-transporting second organic compound, and a guest compound that converts triplet excitation energy to light emission (Abstract). The device further comprises color filters for the production of full-color display devices such as TVs ([0217], [0223]). The first and second organic compounds forms an exciplex (Abstract); the emission spectrum of the exciplex overlaps with the absorption spectrum of the guest compound (at the longest wavelength side) ([0159]). The HOMO/LUMO energy levels of the first and second organic compounds are disclosed:
PNG
media_image1.png
385
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2B) (such that the LUMO level of the first organic compound is lower than the LUMO level of the second organic compound, and the HOMO level of the first organic compound is lower than the HOMO level of the second organic compound). An embodiment is disclosed wherein phosphorescent guest material [Ir(tppr)2(dpm)] (HOMO = -5.57 eV, LUMO = -3.05 eV, transition energy = 2.08 eV, light emission energy = 1.98 eV; Table 3, page 46; [0656], [0680]-[0682] of the present national phase publication) is combined with 2mDBTPDBq-II (first organic compound):
PNG
media_image2.png
209
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(comprising diazine skeleton) (HOMO = -5.88 eV and LUMO = -2.78 eV; [0057] of Takemura et al.) and PCzPCN1 (second organic compound):
PNG
media_image3.png
251
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(comprising aromatic amine skeleton) (Light-Emitting Element 11, [0363]); the guest material emits light due to energy transfer from the exciplex ([0090], [0093]). Seo et al. discloses other compounds of having “high hole-transport property,” including PCzPCA2 “and the like” ([0146]). However, Seo et al. does not explicitly disclose a composition in regards to the energy difference limitations as recited in the claims.
Hamada et al. discloses a light-emitting layer comprising a first organic compound, a second organic compound (2mDBTPDBq-II, [0108]), and a phosphorescent compound ([Ir(tppr)2(dpm)], [0111]) which results in a light-emitting element having a long lifetime and high emission efficiency; the first organic compound is a tertiary amine and the second organic compound is a compound having electron-transporting property ([0013]). Hamada et al. discloses the use of PCBiF (HOMO = -5.26 eV; Table 13, page 59 of the present national phase publication) as the first organic compound ([0345]); the first and second organic compounds form an exciplex ([0033]). The structure of PCBiF is shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
340
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(comprises pyrrole and aromatic amine skeleton) (page 42) (second organic compound). It would have been obvious to substitute PCBiF as disclosed by Hamada et al. for PCzPCN1 in the composition as disclosed by Seo et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Hamada et al., which also teaches a composition comprising a hole-transporting (aromatic amine host) material, an electron-transporting (host) material, and a phosphorescent compound for the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device such that, when used, results in a light-emitting element with a long lifetime and high emission efficiency.
Notice that the use of [Ir(tppr)2(dpm)] as guest material in combination with excess 2mDBTPDBq-II (first compound) and PCBiF (second compound) would inherently meet the limitations as recited by the Applicant wherein the energy difference between the LUMO level of the guest material and the HOMO level of the guest material is larger than the energy difference between the LUMO level of the first organic compound and the HOMO level of the second organic compound (i.e., 2.52 eV > 2.48 eV), larger than the transition energy calculated from an absorption edge of an absorption spectrum of the guest material by 0.4 eV or more (i.e., by 2.52 eV – 2.08 eV = 0.44 eV), and larger than the light emission energy of the guest material by 0.4 eV or more (i.e., by 2.52 – 1.98 eV = 0.54 eV). It is further the position of the Office that such a composition would inherently meet the additional energy and spectral limitations as recited by the Applicant. Evidence is provided by the fact that 2mDBTPDBq-II, PCBiF, and [Ir(tppr)2(dpm)] are the first organic compound, second organic compound, and guest material, respectively, as preferred by the Applicant (see [0196], [0206], [0211], and [0770] of the present national phase publication).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2, 11, and 20 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 closest prior art is provided by Seo et al. (US 2013/0277656 A1), which discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting element) comprising a pair of electrodes, interposed therein a hole-transporting layer and a light-emitting layer; the light-emitting layer comprises an electron-transporting first organic compound, a hole-transporting second organic compound, and a guest compound that converts triplet excitation energy to light emission (Abstract). The device further comprises color filters for the production of full-color display devices such as TVs ([0217], [0223]). The first and second organic compounds forms an exciplex (Abstract); the emission spectrum of the exciplex overlaps with the absorption spectrum of the guest compound (at the longest wavelength side) ([0159]). The HOMO/LUMO energy levels of the first and second organic compounds are disclosed:
PNG
media_image1.png
385
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2B) (such that the LUMO level of the first organic compound is lower than the LUMO level of the second organic compound, and the HOMO level of the first organic compound is lower than the HOMO level of the second organic compound). First organic compounds include compounds such as 2mDBTPDBq-II and 2mDBTBPDBq-II ([0151]). An embodiment with improved performance is disclosed wherein phosphorescent guest material [Ir(tppr)2(dpm)] (HOMO = -5.57 eV, LUMO = -3.05 eV, transition energy calculated from an absorption edge of an absorption spectrum = 2.08 eV, light emission energy = 1.98 eV (Table 3, page 46 of the present national phase publication; [0656], [0680]-[0682])) is combined with 2mDBTPDBq-II (first organic compound):
PNG
media_image2.png
209
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(HOMO = -5.88 eV and LUMO = -2.78 eV) and PCzPCN1 (second organic compound):
PNG
media_image3.png
251
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(comprising aromatic amine skeleton) ([0363], [0380]). The guest material emits light due to energy transfer from the exciplex ([0090], [0093]). Seo et al. discloses other compounds of having “high hole-transport property,” including PCzPCA2 “and the like” ([0146]). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Seo et al. singly nor in combination with any further prior art discloses the light-emitting elements as recited in the claims, particularly in regards to the nature of the guest material.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously stated rejection in view of the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786