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 applicant's amendment of 05/07/2026 has been entered.
The applicant's supplemental reply of 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10-11, 13, 15, 23, 27-28, 30, and 32 are amended due to the applicant's preliminary amendment.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, and 23-32 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 23-26, and 31-32 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 previous Office action is overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 24-29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadoma et al. WO-2020194097-A1, see US-20220158100-A1, and the rejection of claims 23, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadoma et al. WO-2020194097-A1, see US-20220158100-A1 as applied to claims 1, 4, and 10 are each withdrawn due the applicant perfecting the Foreign Priority date and a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(3)(C).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 of the reply dated 05/07/2026 with respect to the rejections of under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al. EP-1011155-A2 in view of Yen et al. US-20140166988-A1 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues bridging pages 9 to 10 that Kido does not treat the layer electron injection layer as a conventional interchangeable electron-transport layer, but rather as a specialized, tightly controlled layer and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to "freely replace its materials with any known compound from an unrelated disclosure."
Examiner's response – As discussed in detail in the rejection of record and repeated below, the substitution made is not simply any "known" electron-transporting layer compound for another. Kido specifically teaches that examples of suitable organic compounds used as the electron-transporting organic compound in the electron injection layer (mixed layer) include condensed heterocyclic compounds such as phenanthroline as well as derivatives thereof in paragraph [0026]. Yen teaches 2,9-bis(naphthalene-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline (NBphen), which is a phenanthroline derivate used as an electron transporting material in organic EL device, the same use as the electron-transporting organic compound in Kido, for its high thermal stability and long life-time (¶ [0068]). Thus, Yen teaches a phenanthroline derivative, which Kido teaches to be suitable, and further teaches advantages of the phenanthroline derivative. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been motivated to make the substitution because Kido teaches suitable organic compounds used as the electron-transporting organic compound include phenanthroline derivatives and Yen teaches NBPhen, which is a phenanthroline derivative, as suitable for use as an electron transporting material in an organic EL device, and because Yen teaches NBphen used as electron transporting material in organic EL device results in high thermal stability and long life-time.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 10 that the selection of a phenanthroline derivative from among Kido's many disclosed alternatives is an unsupported picking-and-choosing that invites hindsight.
Examiner's response -- In response to the applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness to select the compound NBphen taught by Yen is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
Additionally, it is noted that Kido does positively recite examples of suitable organic compounds used as the electron-transporting organic compound include condensed heterocyclic compounds such as phenanthroline as well as derivatives thereof. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the examples. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues on page 10 that Kido in view of Yen fails to teach the exciplex formation between the organometallic complex and the organic compound and would not have had a reasonable expectation of achieving the Applicant's advantages.
Examiner's response – It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant. See MPEP § 2144 IV. The modified device of Kido in view of Yen contains he compounds 8-quinolinolatolithium (Liq) and NBPhen, the same compounds as disclosed by the applicant and would therefore necessarily possess the same properties and advantages that are based on the chemical structures, such as the formation of the exciplex. As noted in the rejection of record, the instant specification recites that NBPhen and Liq together form an exciplex (see specification paragraph [0271]). Since Kido in view of Yen teaches the layer comprising NBPhen : LiQ, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the formation of an exciplex is considered to be inherent, absent evidence otherwise.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues bridging pages 10 to 11 it is only with the benefit of hindsight bias that one having ordinary skill in the art would select the subset of material from Kido and modify them using Yen.
Examiner's response – In response to the applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. As discussed above and outlined below, the rejections take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's argument – The applicant argues that the rejection of the dependent claims is also improper at least due to the dependence on the independent claims and because of the additional features therein.
Examiner's response – The applicant has not provided additional arguments with respect to the dependent claims and therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this is not found persuasive.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification recites "OCET010" multiple times, for example in paragraph [0271] and Table 3; however, no chemical structure formula is provided for this OCET010. Is this a specific compound with a specific structure? Or is this a generic?
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 1, 4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 25, 27-29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al. EP-1011155-A2 (hereinafter "Kido") in view of Yen et al. US-20140166988-A1 (hereinafter "Yen").
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 18, 21, 25, 27-29, 31, Kido teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising, between an anode electrode and a cathode electrode, at least one luminescent layer and an organic layer adjacent to the cathode electrode, the organic layer being a mixed layer of an electron-transporting organic compound and an organic metal complex compound containing at least one member selected from the group including an alkali metal ion, an alkali earth metal ion and a rare earth metal ion (¶ [0011]). Kido discloses examples of the organic metal complex include 8-quinolinolatolithium (¶ [0027]) and teaches examples of the device including Example 1 comprising 8-quinolinolatolithium (Liq) in the mixed organic layer in a ratio of 1:1 with an electron-transporting organic compound (¶ [0044]). Kido discloses the device on a substrate (¶ [0022]).
Kido does not specifically disclose a device (1) wherein the organometallic complex and the organic compound form an exciplex in combination; (2) wherein a value (eV) obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is smaller than a difference (eV) between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound by greater than or equal to 0.5 eV; (3) wherein a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is greater than or equal to 570 nm; (4) wherein a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is less than or equal to 2.9 eV; and (5) wherein when a mixed film of the organometallic complex and the organic compound is analyzed by mass spectrometry, a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of the organometallic complex, a molecular weight of the organic compound, and an atomic weight of an alkaline earth metal contained in the organometallic complex is observed as m/z.
However, Kido teaches that examples of suitable organic compounds used as the electron-transporting organic compound include condensed heterocyclic compounds such as phenanthroline as well as derivatives thereof (¶ [0026]).
Yen teaches 2,9-bis(naphthalene-2-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline (NBphen) is used as an electron transporting material in organic EL device for its high thermal stability and long life-time (¶ [0068]).
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 have modified the device of Kido by forming the electron-transporting organic compound in the organic layer out of NBPhen, as taught by Yen. One would have been motivated to do so because Kido teaches suitable organic compounds used as the electron-transporting organic compound include phenanthroline derivatives and Yen teaches NBPhen, which is a phenanthroline derivative, as suitable for use as an electron transporting material in an organic EL device. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Yen teaches NBphen used as electron transporting material in organic EL device results in high thermal stability and long life-time and therefore forming the electron-transporting organic compound out of NBPhen in the device of Kido would yield the benefit of high thermal stability and long life-time, as described above.
The modified device of Kido in view of Yen comprises the following layer structure: anode electrode / at least one luminescent layer / organic layer comprising 8-quinolinolatolithium and NBPhen / cathode electrode.
Kido and Yen appears silent with respect to the properties of: (1) wherein the organometallic complex and the organic compound form an exciplex in combination; (2) wherein a value (eV) obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is smaller than a difference (eV) between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound by greater than or equal to 0.5 eV; (3) wherein a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is greater than or equal to 570 nm; (4) wherein a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is less than or equal to 2.9 eV; and (5) wherein when a mixed film of the organometallic complex and the organic compound is analyzed by mass spectrometry, a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of the organometallic complex, a molecular weight of the organic compound, and an atomic weight of an alkaline earth metal contained in the organometallic complex is observed as m/z.
The instant specification recites that NBPhen and Liq form an exciplex (see specification paragraph [0271]). The instant specification recites that the mixed film of NBPhen and Liq was analyzed by mass spectrometry and a value obtained by subtracting 2 from the sum of a molecular weight of Liq, a molecular weight of NBPhen, and an atomic weight of Li was observed as m/z (¶ [0275]). Additionally, the instant specification recites Table 3, shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 3 recites that a value obtained by converting into energy a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex LiQ and the organic compound NBPhen having a mass ratio of 1:1 is 0.6 eV smaller than a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound (see specification Table 3), which falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5 eV. Table 3 recites that a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is 621 nm, which falls within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 570 nm. Table 3 recites that a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the organic compound is equal to 2.9 eV, which falls within the claims range of less than or equal to 2.9 eV.
Since Kido in view of Yen teaches the electron transport layer comprising NBPhen : LiQ, the same structure as disclosed by the applicant, the properties of (1)-(5) above are considered to be inherent, 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.
Claims 23, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al. EP-1011155-A2 (hereinafter "Kido") in view of Yen et al. US-20140166988-A1 (hereinafter "Yen") as applied to claims 1, 4, and 10, respectively and further in view of Seo et al. US-20040137270-A1 (hereinafter "Seo").
Regarding claims 23, 30, and 32, Kido in view of Yen teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 4, and 10, respectively.
Kido in view of Yen does not specifically disclose a device as discussed above wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host and light emitting material and the light emitting material emits blue fluorescent light.
Seo teaches a blue emitting material of a chemical formula 1 used in the light emitting layer of an organic luminescent device (¶ [0017]), use with a host compound (¶ [0078]). Seo teaches the emitting material of the chemical formula 1 is a blue emitting material with high color purity and a high luminescent efficiency (¶ [0087]).
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 form the luminescent layer in the device of Kido in view of Yen out of the blue emitting material and host of Seo, based on the teaching of Seo. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high color purity and high luminescent efficiency, as taught by Seo.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al. EP-1011155-A2 (hereinafter "Kido") in view of Yen et al. US-20140166988-A1 (hereinafter "Yen") as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yamazaki et al. US-12455446-B2 (hereinafter "Yamazaki").
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Kido in view of Yen teaches the modified device as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kido in view of Yen does not specifically teach a device as discussed above as part of an electronic device further comprising a housing and a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, or a microphone.
Yamazaki teaches a display device including a plurality of pixels, wherein the plurality of pixels each include a light-emitting device, a sensor device, and a circuit device (Col. 2, seventh paragraph) and further comprising a housing provided with the display device, a sensor provided in the housing (Col. 4, third paragraph).
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 have formed the light emitting device in the display device of Yamazaki out of the device of Kido in view of Yen, because this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of a operational display device. See MPEP § 2143.1.(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, exemplified by Kido et al. EP-1011155-A2, teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising, between an anode electrode and a cathode electrode, at least one luminescent layer and an organic layer adjacent to the cathode electrode, the organic layer being a mixed layer of an electron-transporting organic compound and an organic metal complex compound containing at least one member selected from the group including an alkali metal ion, an alkali earth metal ion and a rare earth metal ion (¶ [0011]). Kido discloses examples of the organic metal complex include 8-quinolinolatolithium (¶ [0027]). Kido does not specifically disclose a device wherein: (1) the organometallic complex and the electron-transporting organic compound form an exciplex in combination; (2) a difference between a HOMO level of the organometallic complex and a LUMO level of the electron-transporting organic compound is greater than a value obtained by converting a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the electron-transporting organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 into energy by 0.5 eV or more; and (3) a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the exciplex formed with the organometallic complex and the organic compound having a mass ratio of 1:1 is greater than or equal to 570 nm and less than 610 nm. Further, the prior art does not provide a reason to modify the device of Kido to select each of the electron-transporting organic compound and the organic metal complex compound such that each of the above properties (1) to (3) are met to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Oyamada et al. WO-2009110075-A1 teaches 2,9-bis (2-naphthyl) -4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline (NBPhen) as electron transporting organic semiconductor for use in an electron transport organic semiconductor layer, which is formed of an organic semiconductor doped with a metal acid salt compound (see abstract and paragraph [0062]).
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.
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