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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed December 12, 2025, which amends claim 1 and cancels claims 14, 15, 17, and 19-21. Claims 1-13 and 22 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed December 12, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-7, 14, 15, 17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pflumm et al. (US 2012/0326141) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2017/138526) as set forth in the Office action mailed August 12, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed December 12, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 8-15, 17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pflumm et al. (US 2012/0326141) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,249,832) as set forth in the Office action mailed August 12, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 22 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0317289) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (WO 2017/138526), where Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0058124) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 22, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0098]). Lee00 teaches that the light emitting layer can be composed of blue fluorescent materials and does not limit the materials used as the dopant (paragraph [0098]). Lee teaches that the hole transporting is composed of a mixture of two materials, such as
PNG
media_image1.png
271
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
292
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image1.png
271
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image3.png
282
261
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image1.png
271
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
228
277
media_image4.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0098]-[0100], Table 3).
Lee does not specially teach a dopant that meets the applicant’s claimed invention.
Hatakeyama teaches blue dopants for use in electroluminescent devices (paragraphs [0358]-[0375]). Hatakeyama teaches that the dopants can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image5.png
107
177
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
157
245
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
139
227
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image8.png
198
234
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0356] and [0357]). Hatakeyama teaches that when these compounds are used as dopant the device has good quantum efficiency (paragraph [0379]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was efficiency filed to modify the device of Lee so the dopant was one of the blue fluorescent dopant taught by Hatakeyama,
PNG
media_image5.png
107
177
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
157
245
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
139
227
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image8.png
198
234
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. The motivation would have been to make a blue emitting device with a good quantum efficiency. The compounds of Hatakeyama as that same as the applicant teaches that has Stokes shift of 20 nm or smaller.
Claim(s) 1, 8-13, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0317289) (hereafter “Lee”) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,249,832) (hereafter “Takahashi”).
Regarding claims 1, 8-13, and 22, Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0098]). Lee00 teaches that the light emitting layer can be composed of blue fluorescent materials and does not limit the materials used as the dopant (paragraph [0098]). Lee teaches that the hole transporting is composed of a mixture of two materials, such as
PNG
media_image1.png
271
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
292
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image1.png
271
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image3.png
282
261
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image1.png
271
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
228
277
media_image4.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0098]-[0100], Table 3).
Lee does not specially teach a dopant that meets the applicant’s claimed invention.
Takahashi teaches blue dopants for use in electroluminescent devices (columns 269-272). Takahashi teaches that the dopants can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image9.png
143
172
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image10.png
147
255
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image11.png
181
264
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image12.png
196
278
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(columns 19-94). Takahashi teaches that when these compounds are used as dopant the device has good efficiency (column 272-273).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was efficiency filed to modify the device of Lee so the dopant was one of the blue fluorescent dopant taught by Takahashi,
PNG
media_image9.png
143
172
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image10.png
147
255
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image11.png
181
264
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image12.png
196
278
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. The motivation would have been to make a blue emitting device with a good efficiency. The compounds of Takahashi as that same as the applicant teaches that has Stokes shift of 20 nm or smaller.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights