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 February 20, 2026, which amends claims 1, 4, 5, cancels claim 6, and adds claims 10-15. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed February 20, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2017/0213969) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2053569) as set forth in the Office action mailed November 26, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee et al. (WO 2015/041428) (hereafter “Hee”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, in view of Kim et al. (KR 2053569), where Kim et al. (US 2022/0352473) (hereafter “Kim”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 10-15, Hee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising, an anode, a light auxiliary layer (applicant’s hole transporting layer), a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (page 114 of the machine translation). Hee teaches that the light auxiliary layer (applicant’s hole transporting layer), can be composed of the following compound,
PNG
media_image1.png
148
146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is an examples (paragraphs 11, 12, and 114 of the machine translation). Hee does not limit the material used in the light emitting layer and teaches that the material can emit blue light (page 114 of the machine translation). Hee teaches that the hole transporting layer and the light emitting layer are made using vapor deposition (page 114 of the machine translation). Hee teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in a full color display that can be used to produce full-color images (pages 1, 7, 8, and 14 of the machine translation).
Hee does not teach where the dopant meets applicant’s formula 2.
Kim teaches blue dopants for use in electroluminescent devices (paragraphs [1118]-[1122]). Kim teaches that the dopants can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image2.png
107
180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
126
195
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
133
226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image5.png
162
220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0259] and [1118]-[1122]). Kim teaches that using these dopants leads to electroluminescent devices that emit blue light with high efficiency, low voltage, and a long lifetime (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Shin so the light emitting dopant was one of the compounds taught by Kim,
PNG
media_image2.png
107
180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
126
195
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
133
226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image5.png
162
220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The motivation would have been to make a blue emitting device that has a high efficiency, low voltage, and a long lifetime.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or make obvious electroluminescent device where the light emitting layer comprises a compound that meet applicant’s formula D. The closest prior art of Kim et al. (KR 2053569), where Kim et al. (US 2022/0352473) (hereafter “Kim”) is used as the English equivalent, teaches blue dopants for use in electroluminescent devices (paragraphs [1118]-[1122]). Kim teaches that the dopants can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image2.png
107
180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
126
195
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
133
226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image5.png
162
220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0259] and [1118]-[1122]). Kim nor the prior art make obvious compounds that meet applicant’s formula D. Given the lack of teachings in the prior art claims 1-5 and 7-9 are allowed.
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