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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The amendment of the specification has overcome the objection of specification set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 18-20 of the reply filed 04/28/2026 regarding The rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liping et al. (US 2014/0167014 A1, hereafter Liping) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama), as evidenced by Lai et al. (US 2014/0070194 A1, hereafter Lai), Lepeltier et al. (“Red phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes(PhOLEDs) based on a heteroleptic cyclometalated Iridium(III) complex”, J. Luminescence 2013, vol. 143, page 145-149, hereafter Lepeltier), Jeong et al. (“Efficient deep-blue emitters based on triphenylamine-linked benzimidazole derivatives for nondoped fluorescent organic light-emitting diodes”, Org. Elec. 2013, vol. 14, page 2497-2504, hereafter Jeong) and the rejections of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liping in view of Hatakeyama as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-20 above, further in view of Karri et al. (US 2023/0006169 A1, hereafter Karri) set forth in the Office Action of 03/03/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is amended to recite, in part, “wherein the second emission layer is configured to emit green light” such that the amended claims would not have been obvious over the cited references.
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The rejections refer to Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer (a first host (Host-1) and a first dopant (DABNA-2)), a second emission layer (a second host (Host-1) and a second dopant (Ir(piq)2acac)), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode) (see sections 27-28 of the last Office Action).
The emitting material of the second emission layer is Ir(piq)2acac which has the following emission spectrum as evidenced by Lepeltier (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
892
1161
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The emission spectrum of Ir(piq)2acac shows that there is a non-zero light emission at a wavelength range of 575 nm and below. It is known in the art that a light having wavelength of 575 nm and below is green light as evidenced by the Color – The Physics Hypertextbook (web page address - https://physics.info/color/, See column 1 in the table on page 1). Therefore, the compound Ir(piq)2acac emits green light. Because the compound Ir(piq)2acac is the only emitting material of the second emission layer of the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama, the second emission layer of the device is configured to emit green light, which reads on all the limitations of the amended claims.
With respect to claim 14, Applicant recites “a maximum emission wavelength of the first color light is shorter than a maximum emission wavelength of the green light of the second emission layer”. The claim limitation “a maximum emission wavelength of the first color light” is interpreted as the maximum emission wavelength of the emission of the compound DABNA-2, which is 469 nm (see Table 1 of Hatakeyama). The claim limitation “a maximum emission wavelength of the green light of the second emission layer” is interpreted as the wavelength of the maximum emission of the green portion of the second emission layer. The compound Ir(piq)2acac has the maximum emission of green light at wavelength of 575 nm as outlined above. The wavelength of 469 nm is shorter than the wavelength of 575 nm; thus, the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of claim 14.
For at least the reason, the arguments are not found persuasive. The rejections are maintained with updates of evidences.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liping et al. (US 2014/0167014 A1, hereafter Liping) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama), as evidenced by Lai et al. (US 2014/0070194 A1, hereafter Lai), Lepeltier et al. (“Red phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes(PhOLEDs) based on a heteroleptic cyclometalated Iridium(III) complex”, J. Luminescence 2013, vol. 143, page 145-149, hereafter Lepeltier), Jeong et al. (“Efficient deep-blue emitters based on triphenylamine-linked benzimidazole derivatives for nondoped fluorescent organic light-emitting diodes”, Org. Elec. 2013, vol. 14, page 2497-2504, hereafter Jeong), and The Physics Hypertextbook (a screen capture of the web page address of https://physics.info/color/ on Jan 22, 2010 by the Way Back Machine, page 1-8, hereafter the Physics Hypertextbook).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-17, Liping discloses a light emitting device comprising an anode, a florescent blue emissive layer, a phosphorescent red emissive layer contacting to the fluorescent blue emissive layer, and a cathode ([0003]-[0004]).
Liping exemplifies a device comprising a first electrode, a hole transport layer, a fluorescent blue emissive layer (BE-3 as a blue fluorescent emitter and Host-1 as a host) and a phosphorescent red emissive layer (Ir(piq)2acac as a red phosphorescent emitter and Host-1 as a host), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (Example 1 in [0068]-[0071], Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liping teaches the T1 energy of the compound Host-1 being 2.36 eV (Table 1).
Liping does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising a boron-containing polycyclic compound as the blue fluorescent emitter; however, Liping does teach that any suitable blue fluorescent emitter can be used ([0022]).
Hatakeyama discloses a thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) compound (DABNA-2) used as the blue emitter of a light emitting device (page 2779, col. 2, and Figs 3-4).
Hatakeyama teaches that the compound DABNA-2 provides ultrapure blue light, high quantum efficiency, excellent color purity (page 2780, col. 2, last paragraph).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Liping by substituting the blue fluorescent emitter with DABNA-2, as taught by Liping and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provides ultrapure blue light, high quantum efficiency, and excellent color purity based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of blue fluorescent emitters in the blue fluorescent emissive layer would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a blue fluorescence emission layer (Host-1 as a host, DABNA-2 as a dopant), a red phosphorescent emission layer (Host-1 as a host, Ir(piq)2acac as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama is equated with a light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer (a first host (Host-1) and a first dopant (DABNA-2)), a second emission layer (a second host (Host-1) and a second dopant (Ir(piq)2acac)), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
The Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the properties 1) to 11) of the device:
1) a triplet energy level of the first host is lower than a triplet energy level of the first dopant, and a triplet energy level of the second host is higher than a triplet energy level of the second 1s dopant (claim 1),
2) a difference between a triplet energy level of the first host and a triplet energy level of the first dopant is in a range of about 0.1 eV to about 0.4 eV (claim 2),
3) a singlet energy level of the first host is higher than a singlet energy level of the first dopant (claim 3),
5) a difference between a triplet energy level of the second host and a triplet energy level of the second dopant is in a range of 3 about 0.05 eV to about 0.3 eV (claim 5),
6) a triplet energy level of the first dopant is higher than a triplet energy level of the second dopant (claim 6), and
7) a difference between a singlet energy level and a triplet energy level of the first dopant is in a range of about 0 eV to about 0.2 eV (claim 1),
8) the first emission layer is configured to emit a first color light, the second emission layer is configured to emit a second color light, and the first color light is different from the second color light (claim 13),
9) a maximum emission wavelength of the first color light is shorter than a maximum emission wavelength of the second color light (claim 14),
10) the first color light is blue light or green light, and the second color light is green light or red light (claim 15), and
11) the light-emitting device is configured to emit a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 430 nm to about 540 nm or about 500 nm to about 620 nm (claim 16).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama inherently possesses the properties 1) to 11) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Liping teaches the T1 energy of Host-1 is 2.36 eV (Table 1).
The instant specification states that S1 and T1 energies of DABNA-2 are each 2.61 eV, and 2.47 eV.
Lai evidences the T1 energy of Ir(piq)2acac is 2.1 eV ([0039]).
Hatakeyama evidences the peak wavelength of DABNA-2 is 469 nm (Table 1).
Lepeltier evidences the peak wavelength of the EL spectrum of Ir(piq)2acac is around 620 nm (Fig. 4).
Regarding the S1 energy of the Host-1 of Liping, Jeong teaches the difference between S1 and T1 states of a similar compound being 0.44 eV (compound T1B in Fig. 1, page 2502, col. 1, line 1). Thus, the difference between S1 and T1 of the Host-1 of Liping is presumed to be 0.44 eV, and the S1 energy of Host-1 of Liping is presumed to be 2.80 eV.
Therefore the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama inherently possesses all the properties 1) to 11).
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
The emission spectrum of Ir(piq)2acac shows that there is a non-zero light emission at a wavelength range of 575 nm and below as evidenced by Lepeltier (Fig. 4). It is known in the art that a light having wavelength of 575 nm and below is green light as evidenced by the Physics Hypertextbook (column 1 in the table on page 1). Therefore, the compound Ir(piq)2acac emits green light. Because the compound Ir(piq)2acac is the only emitting material of the second emission layer of the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama, the second emission layer of the device is configured to emit green light, which reads on all the limitations of the amended claims.
With respect to claim 14, Applicant recites “a maximum emission wavelength of the first color light is shorter than a maximum emission wavelength of the green light of the second emission layer”. The claim limitation “a maximum emission wavelength of the first color light” is interpreted as the maximum emission wavelength of the emission of the compound DABNA-2, which is 469 nm (see Table 1 of Hatakeyama). The claim limitation “a maximum emission wavelength of the green light of the second emission layer” is interpreted as the wavelength of the maximum emission of the green portion of the second emission layer. The compound Ir(piq)2acac has the maximum emission of green light at wavelength of 575 nm as outlined above. The wavelength of 469 nm is shorter than the wavelength of 575 nm; thus, the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the limitations of claim 14.
The Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama meet the limitation of claims 1-6 and 8-17.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liping et al. (US 2014/0167014 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-20 above, further in view of Karri et al. (US 2023/0006169 A1, hereafter Karri).
Regarding claims 18-20, the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer (a first host (Host-1) and a first dopant (DABNA-2)), a second emission layer (a second host (Host-1) and a second dopant (Ir(piq)2acac)), an electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
Liping in view of Hatakeyama does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama; however, Liping does teach that a light emitting device can be applied to a display device.
Karri teach an electronic apparatus (AMOLED display in [0045], 300 in Fig. 3) comprises a source electrode, a drain electrode, and a thin-film transistor that comprises an active layer (340), wherein the first electrode (336) of a light-emitting device (335) is electrically connected to the source of the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor, and the electronic apparatus further comprises a functional layer comprising a touchscreen layer (“touch sensor layer”, 320).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama by incorporating it into an electronic apparatus comprising the light emitting device, a touch screen layer and a thin film transistor containing a source electrode, a drain electrode and an active layer, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor, as taught by Liping and Karri.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide AMOLED display panel, based on the teaching of Karri.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of light emitting devices in an AMOLED device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides an electronic apparatus comprising the light emitting device of Liping as modified by Hatakeyama, a touch screen layer and a thin film transistor containing a source electrode, a drain electrode and an active layer, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights