DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 02/13/26.
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 1-7, 12, 13, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0274087 A1) in view of Duan et al. (CN 108264478 A) and Lin et al. (US 2009/0134783 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/28/25 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-7, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0274087 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0207086 A1), Duan et al. (CN 108264478 A), and Lin et al. (US 2009/0134783 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation as the English equivalent of foreign publication document CN 108264478 A (herein referred to as “Duan et al.”). Unless otherwise indicated, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein correspond to numbers found in the original foreign publication document.
Lee et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light-emitting device):
PNG
media_image1.png
526
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1) comprising anode (110), hole-transporting region (130), light-emitting layer (150) comprising a first emission layer (151) and a second emission layer (152), electron-transporting region (170), and cathode (190); the first emission layer comprises first host, second host, and first dopant, while the second emission layer comprises a third host, fourth host, and second dopant ([0026]). The first host and the third host are the same and are hole-transporting materials ([0037], [0045]-[0046]). The second host and the fourth host are electron-transporting materials; the second host may also be bipolar material capable of both electron and hole transport ([0038], [0045], [0047]). Lee et al. discloses that any one of the emission layers is a blue light-emitting layer ([0237]). The first and second dopant can be the same and includes materials that emit phosphorescence ([0063]); specific embodiments including platinum complexes are disclosed, although “the present disclosure are not limited thereto” ([0151]). Lee et al. discloses the thickness of the light-emitting layer (150) to be 200-600 Ǻ, with a first to second emission layer thickness ratio being 1:1 (for example) ([0042]-[0043]); notice that taking a thinner sublayer of the first emission layer and defining that sublayer to be the “first emission layer” would result in the second emission layer to be thicker than the newly defined first emission layer. Lee et al. discloses that its organic EL device can be included in various apparatuses, such as an electronic, light-emitting, and authentication apparatus (including authentication via fingertip); the light-emitting apparatus includes a thin-film transistor comprising source and drain electrodes, one of which is connected to the anode or cathode ([0250]-[0252]). Lee et al. discloses that the second host is a bipolar compound capable of both electron and hole transport ([0047]); the second host and fourth host are independently triazine-based and/or imidazole-based compounds ([0050]) such as the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
266
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 6). However, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose 1) the first or second dopant material as recited in the claims nor 2) the second host and fourth host such that the Applicant’s Equations (2), (5), and (6) are satisfied.
Regarding point 1, Li et al. discloses phosphorescent platinum complexes for use as emitters in organic EL devices (Abstract; [0067]-[0070]); the devices are configured to emit in the red, green, and blue ([0211]). Li et al. discloses inventive compounds such as the following complex:
PNG
media_image3.png
174
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(pages 7 and 25) (corresponds to Applicant’s PD9) which has an electron-to-photon efficiency of over 20% ([0069]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the above compound as disclosed by Li et al. into the light-emitting layer(s) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Lee et al. (as any of the dopant materials). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Li et al., which teaches such compounds to have high electron-to-photon efficiencies. However, Lee et al. in view of Li et al. does not explicitly disclose the second host and fourth host such that the Applicant’s Equations (2), (5), and (6) are satisfied.
Regarding point 2, Duan et al. discloses the following compound as charge-transporting, bipolar material with good thermal stability (Abstract; [0027], [0068] of the Machine English translation):
PNG
media_image4.png
204
225
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 21) (fourth host) (T1_H4 = 2.73 eV, see Table 1 of the present national phase publication). Such compounds are disclosed to be electron-transporting materials which are used as host materials in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device ([0034], [0063], and [0065] of the Machine English translation). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Duan et al. (above) into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Lee et al. in view of Li et al. as the second host. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Duan et al., which is directed to a triazine-based bipolar compound which is disclosed to be a viable electron-transporting host material for an organic EL device with good thermal stability. However, Lee et al. in view of Li et al. and Duan et al. does not explicitly disclose a second host such that the Applicant’s Equations (2), (5), and (6) are satisfied.
Lin et al. discloses any of the following compounds as charge-transporting (electron-transporting) host materials which can be combined with phosphorescent dopant material, the use of which results in a device with high efficiency ([0016], [0019], [0065]):
PNG
media_image5.png
192
428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(T1_H2 = 2.46 eV, see Table 1 of the present national phase publication),
PNG
media_image6.png
226
426
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(T1_H2 = 2.40 eV, see Table 1 of the present national phase publication), and
PNG
media_image7.png
244
424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(T1_H2 = 2.41 eV, see Table 1 of the present national phase publication) (Figure 2; Claim 3) (second host). It would have been obvious to incorporate any of the compounds as disclosed by Lin et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Lee et al. in view of Li et al. and Duan et al. as the fourth host. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Lin et al., which discloses that the use of its electron-transporting host materials results in a device with high efficiency.
Notice that this would result in the satisfaction of Applicant’s Equations (2), (5), and (6).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-11 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. 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
Prosecution Insights