Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The 112 rejection of claim(s) 3 and 6 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 06/16/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et. Al. (US 20120077987 A1 hereinafter Osaka) in view of Seo et. Al. (US 20110127510 A1), and further in view of Kawamura et. Al. (US 20120126209 A1 hereinafter Kawamura).
Regarding claim 2, Osaka teaches in Fig. 62 and Table 2 on a light-emitting element comprising: a hole-transport layer 1111 comprising a hole-transport material (PCPN) over a first electrode 1101 (Fig. 62, Table 2); a hole-injection layer 1111 between the first electrode and the hole-transport layer, the hole- injection layer comprising a substance having at least one of a fluorine, a chlorine and a cyano group, or a transition metal oxide (transition metal oxide MoOx Table 24, Fig. 62); a light-emitting layer 1113 comprising a guest material (1,6FLPAPrn) and a host material CzPA) over the hole- transport layer (Fig. 62, Table 2); an electron-transport layer (114a-114b) comprising an electron-transport material (CzPA) over and in contact with the light-emitting layer (Fig. 62, Table 2), the electron transport material being a first organic compound (CzPA, Table 2); and a second electrode 1103 over the electron-transport layer (Fig. 62, Table 24), wherein the first organic compound does not comprise aluminum (CzPA (Table 2) does not comprise aluminum) , wherein the hole-transport layer is in contact with the light-emitting layer (Fig. 62).
Osaka does not specify in the present embodiment the host material and the electron-transport material are different from each other however Osaka teaches in Fig. 1A with associated text a general embodiment similar to that of the embodiment of Fig. 62 and Table 2 wherein the electron-transport material is a single layer 114 the host material and the electron-transport material are in contact and are different from each other (Osaka teaches using a number of materials such as BPhen, TAZ or BCP for example that are not for example the CzPA of the host material [0222]).
It would have been obvious to the host material and the electron-transport material are different from each other in the embodiment of Fig. 62 and Table 2 of Osaka as taught by other embodiments of Osaka the HOMO is distributed around both the triphenylene skeleton and the dibenzothiophene skeleton, and both these skeletons can therefore be considered as hole-transport skeletons (both contribute to their respective HOMOs to the same degree) ([0117]) so that mDBTPTp-II for example would be recognized as a suitable hole transport material.
Osaka does not specify the hole-transport material does not comprise amine skeleton.
Seo teaches 6A-8A compounds with amine skeletons for hole transport material and in Figs. 9A-11A alternative hole transport materials that do not comprise amine skeleton such as mDBTPTp-II (Fig. 11A, [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hole-transport material that does not comprise amine skeleton for the hole transport material of Osaka because according to Osaka the HOMO is distributed around both the triphenylene skeleton and the dibenzothiophene skeleton, and both these skeletons can therefore be considered as hole-transport skeletons (both contribute to their respective HOMOs to the same degree) ([0117]) so that mDBTPTp-II for example would be recognized as a suitable hole transport material.
Osaka does not specify a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material is lower than a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the guest material, wherein a Lowest triplet exciton energy level of the hole-transport material is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material, a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the electron-transport material is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material, and wherein a shape of a spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) coincides with a shape of is the same as a shape of a fluorescent spectrum of the guest material however Osaka teaches a structure with materials (Table 2 as modified above) substantially similar to those used in the present application (see Table 1 and Table 3 and paragraph [0039] of the present specification).
The recitation of “a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material is lower than a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the guest material, wherein a Lowest triplet exciton energy level of the hole-transport material is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material, a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the electron-transport material is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material, and wherein a shape of a spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) coincides with a shape of is the same as a shape of a fluorescent spectrum of the guest material” is only a statement of the inherent properties of the hole transport material, the host material and the guest material. The structure recited in Osaka in view of Seo is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Furthermore Kawamura teaches in Fig. 2 with associated text a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material ETh is lower than a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the guest material ETd (Fig. 2 paragraph [0048]), 20wherein a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the hole-transport material ETho is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material (Fig. 2 paragraph [0269]), a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the electron-transport material ETb is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material (Fig. 2),and a shape of a spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to triplet –triplet annihilation (TTA) is the same as a shape of a fluorescent spectrum of the guest material (Kawamura teaches the guest material is a fluorescent dopant (paragraph [0046]) and that TTA (TTF paragraph [0048]), gives rise to fluorescent emission of the guest material (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hole transport, host and guest materials such that they had the claimed lowest triplet exciton energy levels and the because according to Kawamura by using materials with such lowest triplet exciton energy levels triplet excitons generated by recombination on the host do not transfer to the dopant which has a higher triplet energy, as shown in FIG. 3, triplet excitons on the host do not transfer to the dopant but collide with one another efficiently on the host to generate singlet excitons by the TTF phenomenon which energy-transfer to contribute to fluorescent emission of the dopant [0048].
Regarding claim 3, Osaka teaches the electron-transport material comprises a carbazole skeleton (TAZ or BCP for example [0222]),
Regarding claim 4, Osaka in view of Seo and Kawamura teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 2.
Osaka does not specify a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of the fluorescent spectrum of the guest material.
The recitation of “a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of the fluorescent spectrum of the guest material” is only a statement of the inherent properties of the host material and the guest material. The structure recited in “Osaka” is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Furthermore Kawamura teaches in Fig. 2 with associated the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of the fluorescent spectrum of the guest material (TTF paragraph [0048]), gives rise to fluorescent emission of the guest material (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hole transport, host and guest materials such that they had the claimed lowest triplet exciton energy levels and the because according to Kawamura by using materials with such lowest triplet exciton energy levels triplet excitons generated by recombination on the host do not transfer to the dopant which has a higher triplet energy, as shown in FIG. 3, triplet excitons on the host do not transfer to the dopant but collide with one another efficiently on the host to generate singlet excitons by the TTF phenomenon which energy-transfer to contribute to fluorescent emission of the dopant [0048].
Regarding claim 5, Osaka in view of Seo and Kawamura teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 2, wherein a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of an emission spectrum of the light- emitting element.
Osaka does not specify a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of an emission spectrum of the light- emitting element.
The recitation of “a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of an emission spectrum of the light- emitting element” is only a statement of the inherent properties of the host material and the guest material. The structure recited in “Osaka” is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Furthermore Kawamura teaches in Fig. 2 with associated the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of the fluorescent spectrum of the guest material (TTF paragraph [0048]), gives rise to fluorescent emission of the guest material (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hole transport, host and guest materials such that they had the claimed lowest triplet exciton energy levels and the because according to Kawamura by using materials with such lowest triplet exciton energy levels triplet excitons generated by recombination on the host do not transfer to the dopant which has a higher triplet energy, as shown in FIG. 3, triplet excitons on the host do not transfer to the dopant but collide with one another efficiently on the host to generate singlet excitons by the TTF phenomenon which energy-transfer to contribute to fluorescent emission of the dopant [0048].
Regarding claim 7, Osaka teaches the hole-injection layer further comprises an organic compound (PCPN, Table 24).
Regarding claim 8, Osaka teaches the organic compound is the hole-transport material (Table 24).
Regarding claim 9, Osaka teaches A light-emitting device comprising the light-emitting element according to claim 2 [0002].
Regarding claim 10, Osaka teaches an electronic device comprising; a housing (404, 405 and 410); and a display portion 402 comprising the light-emitting element 418 according to claim 2 ([00254] and [0264]), wherein the display portion is provided in the housing (Figs. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 11, Osaka teaches a lighting device comprising the light-emitting element according to claim 2 [0002].
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osaka et. Al. (US 20120077987 A1 hereinafter Osaka) in view of Kawamura et. Al. (US 20120126209 A1 hereinafter Kawamura).
Regarding claim 12, Osaka teaches in Fig. 62 and Table 2 on a light-emitting element comprising: a hole-transport layer 1111 comprising a hole-transport material (PCPN) over a first electrode 1101 (Fig. 62, Table 2); a hole-injection layer 1111 between the first electrode and the hole-transport layer, the hole- injection layer comprising a substance having at least one of a fluorine, a chlorine and a cyano group, or a transition metal oxide (transition metal oxide MoOx Table 24, Fig. 62); a light-emitting layer 1113 comprising a guest material (1,6FLPAPrn) and a host material CzPA) over the hole- transport layer (Fig. 62, Table 2); an electron-transport layer (114a-114b) comprising an electron-transport material (CzPA) over and in contact with the light-emitting layer (Fig. 62, Table 2), the electron transport material being a first organic compound (CzPA, Table 2); and a second electrode 1103 over the electron-transport layer (Fig. 62, Table 24), wherein the hole-transport material is any of a carbazole compound, a dibenzothiophene compound, a dibenzofuran compound, a fluorene compound, a triphenylene compound and a phenanthrene compound (PCPN is a carbazole compound page 41, Formula (100)), wherein the first organic compound does not comprise aluminum (CzPA (Table 2) does not comprise aluminum) , wherein the hole-transport layer is in contact with the light-emitting layer (Fig. 62).
Osaka does not specify in the present embodiment the host material and the electron-transport material are different from each other however Osaka teaches in Fig. 1A with associated text a general embodiment similar to that of the embodiment of Fig. 62 and Table 2 wherein the electron-transport material is a single layer 114 the host material and the electron-transport material are in contact and are different from each other (Osaka teaches using a number of materials that are not for example the CzPA of the host material such as BPhen, TAZ or BCP for example [0222]).
It would have been obvious to the host material and the electron-transport material are different from each other in the embodiment of Fig. 62 and Table 2 of Osaka as taught by other embodiments of Osaka the HOMO is distributed around both the triphenylene skeleton and the dibenzothiophene skeleton, and both these skeletons can therefore be considered as hole-transport skeletons (both contribute to their respective HOMOs to the same degree) ([0117]) so that mDBTPTp-II for example would be recognized as a suitable hole transport material.
Osaka does not specify a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material is lower than a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the guest material, wherein a Lowest triplet exciton energy level of the hole-transport material is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material, a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the electron-transport material is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material, and wherein a shape of a spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) coincides with a shape of is the same as a shape of a fluorescent spectrum of the guest material however Osaka teaches a structure with materials (Table 2 as modified above) substantially similar to those used in the present application (see Table 1 and Table 3 and paragraph [0039] of the present specification).
The recitation of “a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material is lower than a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the guest material, wherein a Lowest triplet exciton energy level of the hole-transport material is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material, a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the electron-transport material is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material, and wherein a shape of a spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) coincides with a shape of is the same as a shape of a fluorescent spectrum of the guest material” is only a statement of the inherent properties of the hole transport material, the host material and the guest material. The structure recited in Osaka in view of Seo is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Furthermore Kawamura teaches in Fig. 2 with associated text a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material ETh is lower than a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the guest material ETd (Fig. 2 paragraph [0048]), 20wherein a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the hole-transport material ETho is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material (Fig. 2 paragraph [0269]), a lowest triplet exciton energy level of the electron-transport material ETb is higher than the lowest triplet exciton energy level of the host material (Fig. 2),and a shape of a spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to triplet –triplet annihilation (TTA) is the same as a shape of a fluorescent spectrum of the guest material (Kawamura teaches the guest material is a fluorescent dopant (paragraph [0046]) and that TTA (TTF paragraph [0048]), gives rise to fluorescent emission of the guest material (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hole transport, host and guest materials such that they had the claimed lowest triplet exciton energy levels and the because according to Kawamura by using materials with such lowest triplet exciton energy levels triplet excitons generated by recombination on the host do not transfer to the dopant which has a higher triplet energy, as shown in FIG. 3, triplet excitons on the host do not transfer to the dopant but collide with one another efficiently on the host to generate singlet excitons by the TTF phenomenon which energy-transfer to contribute to fluorescent emission of the dopant [0048].
Regarding claim 13, Osaka teaches the electron-transport material comprises a carbazole skeleton (TAZ or BCP for example [0222]),
Regarding claim 14, Osaka in view of Seo and Kawamura teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 2.
Osaka does not specify a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of the fluorescent spectrum of the guest material.
The recitation of “a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of the fluorescent spectrum of the guest material” is only a statement of the inherent properties of the host material and the guest material. The structure recited in “Osaka” is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Furthermore Kawamura teaches in Fig. 2 with associated the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of the fluorescent spectrum of the guest material (TTF paragraph [0048]), gives rise to fluorescent emission of the guest material (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hole transport, host and guest materials such that they had the claimed lowest triplet exciton energy levels and the because according to Kawamura by using materials with such lowest triplet exciton energy levels triplet excitons generated by recombination on the host do not transfer to the dopant which has a higher triplet energy, as shown in FIG. 3, triplet excitons on the host do not transfer to the dopant but collide with one another efficiently on the host to generate singlet excitons by the TTF phenomenon which energy-transfer to contribute to fluorescent emission of the dopant [0048].
Regarding claim 15, Osaka in view of Seo and Kawamura teaches the light-emitting element according to claim 2.
Osaka does not specify a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of an emission spectrum of the light- emitting element.
The recitation of “a peak of the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of an emission spectrum of the light- emitting element” is only a statement of the inherent properties of the host material and the guest material. The structure recited in “Osaka” is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01.
Furthermore Kawamura teaches in Fig. 2 with associated the spectrum of delayed fluorescence due to TTA coincides with a peak of the fluorescent spectrum of the guest material (TTF paragraph [0048]), gives rise to fluorescent emission of the guest material (paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hole transport, host and guest materials such that they had the claimed lowest triplet exciton energy levels and the because according to Kawamura by using materials with such lowest triplet exciton energy levels triplet excitons generated by recombination on the host do not transfer to the dopant which has a higher triplet energy, as shown in FIG. 3, triplet excitons on the host do not transfer to the dopant but collide with one another efficiently on the host to generate singlet excitons by the TTF phenomenon which energy-transfer to contribute to fluorescent emission of the dopant [0048].
Regarding claim 16, Osaka teaches the hole-injection layer further comprises a second organic compound (PCPN, Table 24).
Regarding claim 17, Osaka teaches the second organic compound is the hole-transport material (Table 24).
Regarding claim 18, Osaka teaches A light-emitting device comprising the light-emitting element according to claim 12 [0002].
Regarding claim 19, Osaka teaches an electronic device comprising; a housing (404, 405 and 410); and a display portion 402 comprising the light-emitting element 418 according to claim 12 ([00254] and [0264]), wherein the display portion is provided in the housing (Figs. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 20, Osaka teaches a lighting device comprising the light-emitting element according to claim 2 [0002].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments on pages 8-10 the embodiment of Osaka in Fig. 1A with associated text a general embodiment similar to that of the embodiment of Fig. 62 and Table 2 and that in Fig. 1A is relied upon to teach the first organic compound does not comprise aluminum (CzPA or BPhen (Table 2) does not comprise aluminum and a number of materials that are not for example the CzPA of the host material and do not comprise aluminum such as BPhen, TAZ or BCP for example [0222])) as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 12 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897