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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s election without traverse of Species (i), wherein the second compound is a compound represented by claimed formula (200), in the reply filed on 07/17/2025 was previously acknowledged.
Claims 23-30 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/17/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 01/22/2026 is entered.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 14, 19, 21, 31, and 33 amended and claims 1, 4, 13, and 20 are cancelled due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, 14-19, and 21-33 are pending and claims 23-30 are withdrawn from consideration.
The objection to claims 1-3 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-22 and 31-33 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 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-22 and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. WO-2015162912-A1 in view of Yoshida et al. WO-2021157635-A1 as set forth in the previous Office action is overcome due a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly cited Kawamura et al. US-20120126208-A1.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 22-24 of the reply dated 01/22/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth in the previous Office action have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on pages 23-24 that the cited references do not teach or suggest wherein the first electron-transporting layer containing the first compound and the second electron-transporting layer containing the second compound are in direct contact with each other as now recited in independent claim 2 because in the modified device the second compound and the third compound are in separate layers instead of the same layer.
Examiner's response – While the applicant argues that claim 2 recites that the second compound and the third compound are in the same layer and in the modified device they are in separate layers, it is noted that the claim does not require the second compound and third compound to be mixed together. As such, two sequential layers, one comprising the claimed second compound and a second comprising the claimed third compound can be considered one unit, "a second electron-transporting layer," and meet the claim requirement of being in direct contact with the first electron-transporting layer.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 2, it is suggested that the claim be amended to read "the second electron-transporting layer does not comprise Li[[,]] or a quinolate complex of Li" for ease of reading.
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 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.
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 2-3, 5-12, 14-19, 21-22, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. WO-2015162912-A1 (referred to herein as "Takahashi-WO and see English language machine translation referred to herein as "Takahashi-MT") in view of Kawamura et al. US-20120126208-A1 (hereinafter "Kawamura").
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-12, 14-19, 21-22 and 31-33, Takahashi teaches an organic electroluminescent element which includes a luminescent layer disposed between an anode and a cathode, and a hole transport zone formed between the anode and the luminescent layer, wherein the hole transport zone comprises a hole transport layer comprising a compound represented by a formula (1) and a hole injection layer comprising a compound including two to six aromatic 6-membered rings and a linking moiety which comprises a structure represented by the following formula (2a) or (2b) and by which the aromatic 6-membered rings are linked (Takahashi-MT, page 1 of 18 lines 4-10). Takahashi teaches that the device may be used in various display devices or light emitting devices, for example, for light sources such as flat light emitters and display backlights, display units such as mobile phones, PDAs, car navigation systems, car instrument panels, and lighting (Takahashi-MT, page 11 of 18, lines 23-25). Takahashi teaches examples of organic electroluminescent device including the device of Example 1 comprising the following layer structure: ITO (130) / HI (10) / HT-5 (90) / BH2: BD2 (25) (4%) / ET-2 (25) / ET-3 (10) / LiF (1) / Al (80) (Takahashi-MT, page 12 of 18, line 34).
Compound BH2
PNG
media_image1.png
116
157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Takahashi-WO, page 87) is a host material and meets the claimed formulae (100), (101), and (102).
Compound ET-2
PNG
media_image2.png
148
200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Takahashi-WO, page 88) is a third compound and meets the claimed formula (800), (801) and (802), and (811).
Compound ET-3
PNG
media_image3.png
109
263
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Takahashi-WO, page 88) is a second compound and meets the claimed formula (200), (201) and (202), and (211).
Takahashi does not specifically teach a device as discussed above wherein there is a first electron-transporting layer that comprises a claimed first compound between the luminescent layer and the rest of the electron transport region.
Kawamura teaches an organic electroluminescent device including an anode, an emitting layer, an electron transporting zone, and a cathode in sequential order, in which the emitting layer includes a host and a fluorescent dopant, a blocking layer is adjacent to the emitting layer in the electron transporting zone, the blocking layer includes an aromatic heterocyclic derivative, a triplet energy ETb (eV) of the aromatic heterocyclic derivative is larger than a triplet energy ETb (eV) of the host, and the aromatic heterocyclic derivative has an azine ring (¶ [0013]). Kawamura teaches examples of the host include BH-1 (page 23), which is identical to Takahashi's compound BH2, and examples of the aromatic heterocyclic derivative including compound TB-13
PNG
media_image4.png
244
431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 25). Kawamura teaches that the blocking layer has a function of preventing triplet excitons generated in the emitting layer to be diffused to the electron transporting zone and confining the triplet excitons within the emitting layer to increase a density of the triplet excitons therein, thereby causing the TTF phenomenon efficiently (¶ [0064]) and that the blocking layer also serves for efficiently injecting the electrons to the emitting layer (¶ [0065]). Kawamura teaches that in the device, smooth electron injection from the adjacent layer and smooth electron injection to the emitting layer can allow electron injection to the emitting layer without applying high voltage on the organic EL device and efficiently bring a TTF phenomenon (¶ [0066]), thereby providing an organic electroluminescent device of a fluorescent emission with a high efficiency (¶ [0035]).
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 add a blocking layer between the luminescent layer and the electron transporting zone in the device of Takahashi wherein the blocking layer comprises the aromatic heterocyclic derivative such as TB-13
PNG
media_image4.png
244
431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, based on the teaching of Kawamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with a high efficiency, as taught by Kawamura.
The modified device of Takahashi in view of Kawamura comprises the following layer structure: ITO / HI / HT-5 / BH2:BD2 (4%) / the compound of Kawamura / ET-2 (25) / ET-3 (10) / LiF / Al.
The compound of Kawamura is a first compound and meets the claimed formula (1) and (21).
The blocking layer comprising the compound of Kawamura is between the luminescent layer and the cathode and therefore necessarily transports electrons. Thus, the layer may be considered a first electron-transporting layer.
The layers [ ET-2 / ET-3 ] together are between the first electron-transporting layer and the cathode and therefore necessarily transport electrons. Thus, together they may be considered a second electron-transporting layer which is in direct contact with the first electron-transporting layer.
Takahashi in view of Kawamura appears silent with respect to the properties of wherein the absolute value of the difference between the affinity value of the host material and the affinity value of the first compound is 0.20 or less, the absolute value of the difference between the affinity value of the first compound and the affinity value of the second compound is 0.20 or less, and the affinity value of the third compound is larger than the affinity value of the second compound.
The instant specification recites that the compound
PNG
media_image5.png
185
276
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which is identical to Takahashi's compound BH2, has an Af of 2.09 (page 85), the compound
PNG
media_image6.png
154
266
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which is identical to Kawamura's compound TB-13, has an Af of 2.22 (page 66), the compound
PNG
media_image7.png
234
308
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, which is identical to Takahashi's compound ET-2, has an Af of 2.32 (page 86), and the compound
PNG
media_image8.png
138
328
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, which is identical to Takahashi's ET-3, has an Af of 2.10 (page 86).
Since Takahashi and Kawamura teach the same structures as disclosed by the applicant as noted above, the claimed properties of wherein the absolute value of the difference between the affinity value of the host material and the affinity value of the first compound is 0.20 or less, the absolute value of the difference between the affinity value of the first compound and the affinity value of the second compound is 0.20 or less, and the affinity value of the third compound is larger than the affinity value of the second compound 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights