DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 06/18/26.
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 objection to the disclosure as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/25/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
4. The objection to Claims 2, 3, and 7 as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/25/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
5. The rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/25/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
6. The rejection of Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO 2015/022987 A1) in view of Adachi et al. (US 2015/0105564 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/25/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
7. The rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO 2015/022987 A1) in view of Adachi et al. (US 2015/0105564 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/25/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
8. The rejection of Claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO 2015/022987 A1) in view of Adachi et al. (US 2015/0105564 A1) and Matsunami et al. (JP 2008-159777 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/25/26 is overcome by the cancellation of the claims.
9. The rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO 2015/022987 A1) in view of Adachi et al. (US 2015/0105564 A1) and Ramadas et al. (US 2011/0132449 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/25/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
10. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “Z1” and “Z2” which must be replaced by “Z1” and “Z2,” respectively for consistency with Formula 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
12. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites that “the third compound is represented by one of Formulas 5-1 to 5-3” which renders the exact scope of the claim indefinite as Formulae 5-2 and 5-3 are nowhere found.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO 2015/022987 A1) in view of Adachi et al. (US 2015/0105564 A1) and Matsunami et al. (JP 2008-159777 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2016/0268516 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2015/022987 A1 (herein referred to as “Tanaka et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to those found in the national phase publication.
The Office has further relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication JP 2008-159777 A (herein referred to as “Matsunami et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to those found in the Machine English translation.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 5, 14-18, and 20, Tanaka et al. discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL) element (organic light emitting diode) comprising the following layers: anode, hole-injecting layer, hole-transporting layer, electron-blocking layer, light-emitting layer, hole-blocking layer, electron-transporting layer, electron-injecting layer, and cathode which lie on a substrate ([0153], [0373]); additional light-emitting units can be present (including three), which are interposed by intermediate (“charge generating”) layers ([0160]-[0164]). The non-light emitting surface of the device is covered with a glass case, with the substrate acting as a sealing substrate ([0373]). The one or plural light-emitting layers (i.e., within each light-emitting unit or among the plurality of light-emitting units) comprise a plurality of emission dopant materials to emit white light, particularly via the combination of blue, green, and red ([0177]-[0178], [0338], [0369]). The mass ratio of the host material is at least 20% ([0189]); a plurality of host materials can be present ([0190]). The light-emitting layer(s) comprise fluorescent compound(s) (dopant material(s)) in combination with host material(s) (the latter in excess) ([0024], [0173]); a plurality of dopants can be employed ([0175]). Delayed fluorescent dopants are used ([0101]-[0105]). Tanaka et al. further discloses host materials of the following form:
PNG
media_image1.png
114
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0197]) where X101 = NR101, O, or S (among others), Ar101 = aryl or heteroaryl ([0198], [0205]). An embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image2.png
328
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 38) (first compound) such that R = C6 aryl group (phenyl) and Z1-2 = O of Applicant’s Formula 1. However, Tanaka et al. does not explicitly disclose a first compound that fully reads on the Applicant’s formula, particularly in regards of the bonding position on the peripheral dibenzofuranyl group. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound H-191 as disclosed by Tanaka et al. (above) such that the resulting compound fully conforms to Applicant’s Formula 1 (and corresponds to 1-4 as recited in Claim 16). The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the bonding position on the peripheral dibenzofuranyl group, producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; additional motivation exists, including the fact that the modification merely involves selection of one possible embodiment from a highly finite list as envisioned from the scope of Tanaka et al.’s general formula (in regards to the manner of connection of the -(Ar102)n102 group, i.e., wherein the bonding can occur at any position on the Ar102 group), thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. However, Tanaka et al. does not explicitly disclose 1) a second compound nor 2) a third compound as recited in Claim 1.
Regarding point 1, Adachi et al. discloses the following compound that is “extremely useful” as (delayed) fluorescent material, the use of which results in a device that can have high light emission efficiency ([0009]):
PNG
media_image3.png
149
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
166
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
270
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0010], [0020]; page 7) (second compound) such that X = single bond, n2 = 2, n1 = 2, and Y = CN of Applicant’s Formula 2-1; corresponds to 2-9 as recited in Claim 17. It would have been obvious to incorporate Compound No. 21 as disclosed by Adachi et al. into (any of) the light-emitting layer(s) of the organic EL device as disclosed by Tanaka et al. (as dopant material). The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Adachi et al., which teaches that the use of its materials as emitters may result in a device with high light emission efficiency. However, Tanaka et al. in view of Adachi et al. does not explicitly disclose a third compound as recited in the claim.
Regarding point 2, Matsunami et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image6.png
240
338
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 10 of Matsunami et al.) (third compound) such that R41 = R43 = R45 = R47 = C7 aryl group (tolyl) and R42 = R44 = R46 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Formula 5-3. Matsunami et al. discloses its inventive compounds as dopant materials (which are in combination with host materials) for red emission, the use of which results in good luminous efficiency and color purity ([0012]-[0013]). Host materials include the following ([0045], [0051], [0055]):
PNG
media_image7.png
204
242
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(page 22 of Matsunami et al.) (alternative third compound) such that R11-26 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Formula 5-1. It would have been obvious to incorporate the composition as disclosed by Matsunami et al. into the light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Tanaka et al. in view of Adachi et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Matsunami et al., which discloses a red-emitting composition for the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in good luminous efficiency and color purity.
Regarding Claims 8-11, Notice that the light-emitting layer comprising a plurality of dopant materials (for red, green, and blue emission) (second and third compounds) and a plurality of host materials (first and second hosts, which can be identical compounds, along with Tanaka et al.’s modified compound H-191 (first compound)) can be divided into three sublayers (corresponding to the first, second, and third layers starting from the anode). Defining the electron-blocking layer to further include some arbitrary portion of the first layer (comprising first host); defining the hole-blocking layer to further include some arbitrary portion of the third layer (comprising second host) would inherently read the limitations of Claims 10 and 11.
Regarding Claim 19, Tanaka et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the compounds as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify Compound H-191 such that Z1 is different from Z2. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves an exchange of any one of the atomic linking groups (O) for a functional equivalent (S) selected from a highly finite list of viable linking groups as envisioned by Tanaka et al.; further motivation exists, as the latter belongs to the same group (i.e., has identical electronic valency) and thus can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
16. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO 2015/022987 A1) in view of Adachi et al. (US 2015/0105564 A1) and Matsunami et al. (JP 2008-159777 A) as applied above and in further view of Ramadas et al. (US 2011/0132449 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on national phase publication US 2016/0268516 A1 as the English equivalent of WIPO publication WO 2015/022987 A1 (herein referred to as “Tanaka et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to those found in the national phase publication.
The Office has further relied on the Machine English translation of foreign patent publication JP 2008-159777 A (herein referred to as “Matsunami et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to those found in the Machine English translation.
Tanaka et al. in view of Adachi et al. and Matsunami et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (light emitting display device) of Claim 1 as shown above. However, Tanaka et al. in view of Adachi et al. and Matsunami et al. does not explicitly disclose an encapsulation film covering the device.
Ramadas et al. discloses a barrier film (120) which encapsulates an organic EL device (OLED) (Fig. 1); such films are “highly effective” for encapsulating moisture and oxygen sensitive devices as well as neutralizing UV light ([0009], [0011]). The invention avoids the use of metal or metal oxide film, which overcomes the problem of barrier degradation ([0011]). It would have been obvious to incorporate such an encapsulating layer into the organic EL device as disclosed by Tanaka et al. in view of Adachi et al. and Matsunami et al. The motivation is provided by the fact that such a layer would provide moisture, oxygen, and UV protection, with the added benefit of increased durability due to the avoidance of metal or metal oxide film.
Response to Arguments
17. The Applicant argues that “[t]he compound of Adachi is a blue light-emitting material (e.g., paragraph [0088]), and the compound of Matsunami is a red emission guest material (e.g., paragraph [0013])” (page 25) such that there is no motivation to combine and incorporate into the white light-emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent (EL) device as disclosed by Tanaka et al. (and wherein the first emitting material layer must be a green emitting material layer as recited in Claim 1). The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that the light-emitting layer (either present singly or in a plurality) in the organic EL device as disclosed by Tanaka et al. allows for the presence of a plurality of dopant materials, including blue, green, and red; the presence of green dopant material(s) would result in the production of a light-emitting layer that is inherently “a green emitting material layer” (as it would necessarily emit light containing wavelengths in the green region of the visible spectrum) ([0177]-[0178], [0338], [0369]).
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A Chriss 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights