ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE COMPRISING NOVEL ORGANIC COMPOUND IN EMISSION LAYER

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 September 21, 2026, which amends claims 1-13 and 24. Claims 1-24 are pending. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed September 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of clam 24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Office action mailed July 29, 2026. Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed September 21, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of clams 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (WO 2020/080417) in view of Tanabe et al. (US 2009/0131673) as set forth in the Office action mailed July 29, 2026. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 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) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (WO 2020/080417), wherein Tasaki et al. (US 2022/0285625) (hereafter “Tasaki’) is used as the English equivalent, in view of Kim et al. (US 2009/0131673) (US 2017/0155050) (hereafter “Kim”). Regarding claims 1-24, Tasaki teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a first light emitting layer, a second light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0768]-[0847]) (claims 1 and 14). Tasaki teaches that both the first light emitting layer and the second light emitting layer comprise a host material and a fluorescent dopant (paragraph [0768]-[0847]). Tasaki teaches that the dopant material can be the same in each light emitting layer and can have the following structure, PNG media_image1.png 168 250 media_image1.png Greyscale (paragraphs [0768]-[0847]) (claims 15 and 23). Tasaki teaches host material can comprise a pyrene group or an anthracene group and teaches that at least one of the host materials needs to be deuterated and the deuterated host can either be the host of the first light emitting layer or the host of the second light emitting layer (paragraphs [0171] and [0768]-[0847]). Tasaki teaches that the host material can have the following structure, PNG media_image2.png 160 275 media_image2.png Greyscale , PNG media_image3.png 145 222 media_image3.png Greyscale , and PNG media_image4.png 126 218 media_image4.png Greyscale are a few examples (paragraphs [0258] and [0786]-[0847]) (claims 16-22). Tasaki teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in a flat display device (paragraph [0757]) (claims 24). Tasaki does not specifically teach where one of the host materials is a pyrene compound. Kim teaches host materials for use in the light emitting layer for blue emitting materials (paragraphs [0146], [0194], [0195], [0215], [0227], and [0228]). Kim teaches that the host material can have the following structure, PNG media_image4.png 126 218 media_image4.png Greyscale , which is the same as the compounds of Tasaki and PNG media_image5.png 165 193 media_image5.png Greyscale , PNG media_image6.png 197 197 media_image6.png Greyscale , and PNG media_image7.png 197 206 media_image7.png Greyscale , and teaches that compounds can be substituted with deuterium atoms ([0051]-[0057], [0137]-[0145]and [0146]) (claims 2-13). Kim shows that the host materials can be used interchangeably [0146], [0194], [0195], [0215], [0227], and [0228]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one of the host materials of Tasaki with the pyrene host of Kim PNG media_image5.png 165 193 media_image5.png Greyscale , PNG media_image6.png 197 197 media_image6.png Greyscale , or PNG media_image7.png 197 206 media_image7.png Greyscale (which can also be deuterated). Tasaki teaches that the host materials can be a pyrene compound and that one of the hosts needs to be deuterated. Kim shows that the pyrene host materials can be used instead of anthracene host materials. Given the teachings in the prior art, it would have been obvious to use the host material of Tasaki as one of the host materials in the device of Kim. 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