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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
Claims 2, 5-7, and 21-22 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-20 are pending.
The amendments to claims 1 and 4 have overcome the rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”), and further in view of Taka et al. (WO 2006/117914 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Taka”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”), and further in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”) set forth in the last Office action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”), and further in view of Taka et al. (WO 2006/117914 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Taka”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”), and further in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4: Hatakeyama ‘049 discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode opposite to the first electrode, and one or more organic layers interposed between the first and second electrodes {paragraphs [1335]-[1347] and Table 1: Example 89}.
One of the layers is a light emitting layer composed of a host and a dopant and the dopant is the compound shown below {(paragraphs [1335]-[1347] and Table 1: Example 89 comprises compound 1F-24 as the light emitting dopant.), (paragraph [1199]: Compund (1F-24))}.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where two Z on the benzene ring on which the amine is substituted are CR and two R are alkenyl that are joined to form a ring. It is noted that while only the instant R12 to R14 are explicitly described as being optionally bonded together to form a ring, the claims are silent as to whether adjacent R can be joined to form a ring. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claims are being interpreted such that two adjacent R can be joined to form a ring.
The host material has the structure shown below {(paragraphs [1335]-[1347] and Table 1: Example 89 comprises compound BH-2 as the host material.), (paragraph [1342]: Compund (BH-2))}.
PNG
media_image2.png
212
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama ‘049 does not teach a compound having the structure shown above except for the sulfur atom of the polycyclic is instead an oxygen atom.
However, Hatakeyama ‘049 teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Hatakeyama ‘049 (such as the compound shown above) can have the structure shown below {paragraphs [0011], [0018], [0058]-[0059], and [0145]-[0146]: The compounds of the disclosure have the structure of formula (1}, which can further have the structure of formula (4), shown below.}.
PNG
media_image3.png
314
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The variable X can be sulfur or oxygen {paragraphs [0020] and [0152]}.
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 compound of Hatakeyama ‘049 shown above by substituting an oxygen atom in place of the sulfur atom, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama ‘049. The substitution would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of oxygen would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the described options for the substituent variable X of Hatakeyama ‘049), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 8: Hatakeyama ‘049 teaches all of the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
Hatakeyama ‘049 further discloses that the organic layers are formed by a deposition process {paragraphs [1335]-[1347] and Table 1: Example 89}.
Regarding claim 11: Hatakeyama ‘049 teaches all of the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
Hatakeyama ‘049 does not exemplify a specific flat panel display or flexible display comprising the organic electroluminescence device of Hatakeyama ‘049 described above.
However, Hatakeyama ‘049 teaches that the device of Hatakeyama ‘049 can be included in a flat panel display or a flexible display {paragraphs [1166]-[1170]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Hatakeyama ‘049 such that it was included in a flat panel display or a flexible display, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama ‘049. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device to be included in a display device in order to produce optimal display devices.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Taka et al. (WO 2006/117914 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Taka”).
Regarding claim 9: Hatakeyama ‘049 teaches all of the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
Hatakeyama ‘049 does not exemplify a device in which an additional light-emitting dopant is included in the light emitting layer.
Taka teaches that multiple dopants may be used in a single light-emitting layer in order to produce white light, including a combination of blue, green, and red emitters {paragraphs [0319]-[0321]}.
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 device of Hatakeyama ‘049 by including light-emitting dopants in addition to the emitter of Hatakeyama ‘049 such that green, red, and blue light is emitted, based on the teaching of Taka. The motivation for doing so would have been to produce a white light emitting light emitting diode, as taught by Taka.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2020/251049 A1—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama ‘049”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2006/0103298 A1) (hereafter “Lee”) and Nishizeki et al. (JP 2010-215759—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Nishizeki”).
Regarding claim 10: Hatakeyama ‘049 teaches all of the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
Hatakeyama ‘049 does not exemplify a device in which an additional host is included in the light emitting layer.
Lee teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an organic layer where the organic layer includes an emission layer, including a first host and a second host {paragraphs [0027]}.
The additional host material suppresses crystallization of the host material {paragraph [0031]}.
One host can have hole transporting characteristics {paragraphs [0029]-[0031]}.
The other host can have electron transporting characteristics {paragraph [0031]}.
However, it is noted that Lee does not require that one host be a hole transporting host and the other be an electron transporting host, but rather this arrangement is an option {paragraphs [0029]-[0031]}.
Nishizeki teaches organic electroluminescence devices {paragraphs [0557]-[0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that multiple hosts can be used in a light emitting layer {paragraph [0566]}. Nishizeki teaches that by using a plurality of types of host compounds, it is possible to adjust the transfer of electric charges, and it is possible to improve the efficiency of the organic electroluminescence device {paragraph [0566]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to have modified the organic light emitting device of Iida by using an emission layer comprising two host materials, based on the teaching of Lee and Nishizeki. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an emission layer with suppressed crystallization and improved efficiency, as taught by Lee and Nishizeki.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 to 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As outlined in the Office action of 10 December 2025, Hatakeyama et al. (JP 2021-038206 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) is a representation of the closest prior art. The compounds of the current claim 12 have a substitution pattern not taught by Hatakeyama. Furthermore, the prior art does not provide teaching or motivation to modify the compounds of Hatakeyama to have the substitution pattern of the current claim 2.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights