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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Summary of Claims
Claims 1 and 13 are amended, claims 11-12 and 20 are cancelled, and claim 21 is new due to Applicant's amendment dated 12/08/2025. Claims 1-9, 13-19, and 21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 11-12 and 20 as set forth in the previous Office Action is moot because claims 11-12 and 20 is cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 12/08/2025.
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0090719 A1) in view of Nakano (US 2020/0111962 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/08/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5-9 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama (US 2019/0058124 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s amendment dated 12/08/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 15-16 of the reply dated 12/08/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 13-19 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –Applicant argues that as Han is directed to a white organic electroluminescence display device requiring three sub-light emitting units and two charge generation layers, the cited references do not teach the claims as amended. They newly amended claims require a first emitting part and a second emitting part, wherein the first emitting part contacts one surface of the first charge generation layer and the second emitting part contacts the other surface of the first charge generation layer.
Examiner's response –The claimed first emitting part is not defined by any structure other than by requiring a first emitting material layer. Similarly, the claimed second emitting part is not defined by any structure other than by requiring a second emitting material layer. Accordingly, the claimed first emitting part and the claimed second emitting part can include any number of layers (including any number of emitting layers) and any type of layer as long as the first emitting part includes a first emitting material layer and the second emitting part includes a second emitting material layer.
Additionally, as the amended claims merely require the first emitting part and the second emitting part to contact the surface of the first charge generation layer, this contact may be either physical (direct contact) or electrical (not necessarily direct contact).
Accordingly, in Han’s device, the first sub-light-emitting unit reads on the claimed first emitting part, and the combination of the second sub-light-emitting unit, the second charge generation unit, and the third sub-light-emitting unit read on the claimed second emitting part. Thus, the first emitting part contacts (both physically and electrically) one surface of the first charge generation layer and the second emitting part contacts (both physically and electrically) the other surface of the first charge generation layer.
Accordingly, the cited references read on the claims as amended.
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 1-9, 13-19, and 21 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 13 recite the new amendment that the first emitting part contacts one surface of the first charge generation layer and the second emitting part contacts the other surface of the first charge generation layer. The limitation of “other surface” may refer to an opposite surface or any edge surface of the first charge generation layer. The instant specification recites Fig. 3 which comprises a first emitting part 210, a second emitting part 230, and a charge generation layer 250 between the first and second emitting parts (instant ¶ [0059]). As shown in Fig. 3, the first emitting part 210 contacts the charge generation layer 250 on one surface, and the second emitting part 230 contacts the charge generation layer 250 on the opposite surface. Accordingly, while there is support for the second emitting part contacting the opposite surface of the first generation layer, there is not sufficient support for the full scope of “other surface”. For this reason, claims 1 and 13 are considered to have new matter.
Claims 2-9, 14-19, and 21 are rejected for being dependent upon claims 1 and 13.
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 1-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0090719 A1) in view of Nakano (US 2020/0111962 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 13-15, Han teaches an organic electroluminescence device including a base substrate, a first electrode, a second electrode, and a light-emitting unit between the first and second electrodes, wherein the light-emitting unit comprises sequentially a first sub-light-emitting unit on the first electrode and including a first emission layer (first emitting material layer), a first charge generation layer (first charge generation layer) on the first sub-light-emitting unit, a second sub-light-emitting unit on the first charge generation layer and including a second emission layer, a second charge generation layer on the second sub-light-emitting unit, and a third sub-light-emitting unit on the second charge generation layer and including a third emission layer (second emitting material layer), wherein each of the first and second emission layers include a first host and the third emission layer includes a second host different from the first host (abstract). Such a device has excellent efficiency while reducing material costs (¶ [0002] and [0045]; Fig. 3).
In Han’s device, the first sub-light-emitting unit reads on the claimed first emitting part, and the combination of the second sub-light-emitting unit, the second charge generation unit, and the third sub-light-emitting unit read on the claimed second emitting part. Accordingly, the first emitting part both physically and electrically contacts one surface of the first charge generation layer and the second emitting part both physically and electrically contacts the other surface of the first charge generation layer.
Han is silent as to the first and second hosts being deuterated anthracene derivatives. However, Han does teach each of the first host and the second host may be any suitable hosts as long as they are different from each other (¶ [0061]). Additionally, Han teaches the blue dopant of the first and third emission layers may include any suitable blue dopant (¶ [0103] and [0109]).
Nakano teaches an organic electroluminescence device having a low CIEy value and a long lifetime by including a compound represented by formula (1) as a host material and a compound represented by formulas (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81) as a dopant material in an emitting layer (¶ [0009]-[0010]). Nakano teaches examples of emitting layers comprising a compound represented by formula (1) including Example 1, which comprises the host BH-1 and 2% of a dopant material, and Example 7, which comprises the host BH-7 and 2% of a dopant material (see ¶ [0656] and [0665]; Table 1 on pg. 524; and structures on pgs. 515 and 519).
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 include a compound represented by Nakano’s formula (1) as a host material and a 2% of a blue emitting compound represented by Nakano’s formulas (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81) as a dopant material in each of the first and third emission layers, based on the teaching of Nakano. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having a low CIEy value and a long lifetime, as taught by Nakano.
In particular, 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 BH-7 as the host for the first emission layer (as shown in Nakano’s Example 7) and BH-1 as the host for the third emission layer (as shown in Nakano’s Example 1), because it would have been choosing particular host compounds taught by Nakano and particular layers in which to include the compounds, and this would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of the device of Han in view of Nakano and possessing the benefits taught by Han and Nakano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds represented by Han’s formula (1) having the benefits taught by Nakano in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
BH-7 (first compound) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 2.
BH-7:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
204
241
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BH-7 reads on the claimed Formula 1 and Formula 3 (claims 1-2 and 13-14) wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C10 aryl group;
L is a C6 arylene group;
a1 is 8; and
b2 and c2 are each 7, and d2 is 4.
Additionally, BH-7 is a compound of Formula 5 (claims 3 and 15).
BH-1 (second compound) is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1.
BH-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
185
325
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
203
241
media_image4.png
Greyscale
BH-1 reads on the claimed Formula 1 and Formula 4 (claims 1-2 and 13-14) wherein:
Ar1 and Ar2 are each a C10 aryl group;
L is a C6 arylene group;
a2 is 8; and
b2, c2, and d2 are each 0.
Accordingly, the sum of a1, b1, c1, and d1 is greater than the sum of a2, b2, c2, and d2.
Additionally, BH-1 reads on the claimed compound Host 1-2 (claims 4 and 15).
Claims 5-9, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0090719 A1) in view of Nakano (US 2020/0111962 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US 2019/0058124 A1).
Supporting evidence provided by Wang (Wang, Yaxiong, et al. "A periphery cladding strategy to improve the performance of narrowband emitters, achieving deep-blue OLEDs with CIEy< 0.08 and external quantum efficiency approaching 20%." Organic electronics 97 (2021): 106275.)
Regarding claims 5-8 and 16-18, Han in view of Nakano teach the device including a first emission layer comprising the host compound BH-7 and 2% of a blue dopant material and a third emission layer comprising the host compound BH-1 and 2% of a blue dopant material, wherein the blue dopant materials are each a compound represented by one of Nakano’s formulas (11), (21), (31), (41), (51), (61), (71), and (81), as described above with respect to claims 1 and 13.
Han in view of Nakano fail to specifically teach wherein the dopants of the first and third emitting layers are boron derivatives. However, as discussed above, the dopant may be represented by Nakano’s formula (41), which has the structure below (¶ [0436]).
(41):
PNG
media_image5.png
101
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama teaches an organic EL element having optimal light emission characteristics by comprising a polycyclic aromatic compound represented by general formula (1) as a dopant material in an emitting layer (abstract; ¶ [0064]). Hatakeyama teaches examples of the polycyclic aromatic compound including compound (1-2688) (pg. 4).
(1-2688):
PNG
media_image6.png
234
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by Wang, compound (1-2688) is a blue emitter (see compound 2tPAB on pg. 3; and Conclusion on pg. 8). Additionally, compound (1-2688) reads on Nakano’s formula (41) wherein: ring a, b, and c are each a substituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring carbon atoms; and R401 and R402 are each a substituted aryl group having 6 ring carbon atoms (see Nakano, ¶ [0436]-[0440]).
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 Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) as the dopant in the first and third emission layers, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device having optimal light emission characteristics, as taught by Hatakeyama.
Additionally, as compound (1-2688) is a blue dopant that reads on Nakano’s formula (41), 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 compound (1-2688) as the dopant for both of the first and third emission layers, because it would have been choosing a specific compound taught by Hatakeyama, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the dopant in the first and third emitting layers of the device of Han in view of Nakano and possessing the benefits taught by Hatakeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds of Hatakeyama’s general formula (1) having the benefits taught by Hatakeyama in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The dopant compound (1-2688) of the first and third emitting layers is a boron derivative, and thus reads on both of the claimed third and fourth compounds (claims 5 and 16), and is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 7.
(1-2688):
PNG
media_image6.png
234
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Formula 7:
PNG
media_image7.png
217
353
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound (1-2688) reads on the claimed Formula 7 (claims 6 and 17) wherein:
R11, R12, R14, R21, R23, R24, R31, R32, R34, R35, R41, R42, R44, and R45 are each hydrogen;
R13, R22, R33, and R43 are each a C4 alkyl group; and
R51 is a C12 arylamino group.
Additionally, compound (1-2688) reads on the claimed Dopant 2 (claims 7 and 18).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama teach the device including a first emission layer comprising the host compound BH-7 and a third emission layer comprising the host compound BH-1, wherein each of the first and third emission layers comprise 2% of the dopant compound (1-2688), as described above with respect to claims 5 and 16.
Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama are silent as to the thickness of the first and third emission layers. However, Han does teach the thicknesses of the first and third emission layers may be the same or different (¶ [0064]).
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 the same thickness for each of the first and third emission layers, because it would have been one of two choices, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a device possessing the benefits taught by Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices having the benefits taught by Han, Nakano, and Hatakeyama in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 21, Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama teach the device including a first emission layer comprising the host compound BH-7 and 2% of compound (1-2688) and a third emission layer comprising the host compound BH-1 and 2% of compound (1-2688), as described above with respect to claim 5.
Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama fail to teach a weight % of compound (1-2688) in the first emission layer is greater than a weight % of compound (1-2688) in the third emission layer.
However, Hatakeyama teaches the amount of dopant is preferably from 0.1 to 10% as this prevents a concentration quenching phenomenon (¶ [0147]). Hatakeyama specifically teaches in Example 1 the light emitting layer may include 5% of the dopant (¶ [0360]).
Therefore, given the general formula and teachings of Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the dopant concentration in the first emission layer from 2% to 5%, as shown in Hatakeyama’s Example 1, because Hatakeyama teaches the dopant concentration may suitably be selected as 0.1 to 10%. The substitution would have been one known dopant concentration for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified first emission layer would be useful in the device of Han in view of Nakano and Hatakeyama and possess the benefits taught by Hatakeyama. See MPEP 2143.I.(B).
Accordingly, in the resulting device, the weight % of compound (1-2688) in the first emission layer (5%) is greater than a weight % of compound (1-2688) in the third emission layer (2%).
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 on 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/Examiner, Art Unit 1786