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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on04/03/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The applicant's amendment of 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are due to the applicant's amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-8, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Niboshi et al. WO-2019064333-A1, the rejection of Claims 5-6, 9-10, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. WO 2019064333 A1 as applied to claims 1, 2, and 7 with supporting evidence provided by Song et al. Optoelectron. Lett. Vol. 2 No. 5, 15 Sept 2006 and Baranoff et al. Dalton Trans., 2015, 44, 8318, and the rejection of claims 5-6, 9-12, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. WO 2019064333 A1 as applied to claim 1, 2, and 7, and further in view of Fleetham et al. Chem. Mater. 2016, 28, 3276-3282 with supporting evidence provided by Song et al. Optoelectron. Lett. Vol. 2 No. 5, 15 Sept 2006 as set forth in the previous Office action are each overcome due to the applicant's amendment.
However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of further teachings of Niboshi.
Response to Arguments
Insofar as the arguments apply to the new grounds of rejection outlined below, the applicant's arguments on pages 8-9 of the reply dated 04/03/2026 with respect to the rejections of record have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument – the applicant argues on pages 8-9 that the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are overcome due to the applicant's amendment dated 04/03/2026
Examiner's response – The claims did not previously require the amended limitations of wherein both the phosphorescent emitter is an organometallic emitter and the fluorescent emitter comprises an amine-containing organic compound and the amended limitations are met in the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. WO 2019064333 A1, see English language equivalent US-20200388780-A1 referred to herein as "Niboshi".
Regarding claims 1-10 and 13-20, Niboshi teaches an organic EL display comprises an anode electrode, an organic EL layer, and a cathode electrode (¶ [0110]), wherein the organic EL layer comprises a hole injection layer (HIL), a hole transport layer (HTL), a light-emitting layer unit including a plurality of luminescent material containing layers, an electron transport layer (ETL), and an electron injection layer (EIL) are layered in this order from the anode electrode (¶ [0046]). Niboshi teaches wherein the light-emitting layer unit comprises a blue phosphorescent luminescent material containing layer and a blue fluorescent luminescent material containing layer layered in this order from the anode electrode (¶ [0111]), wherein the blue phosphorescent luminescent material containing layer comprises a blue phosphorescent luminescent material and a host (¶ [0111] and ¶ [0056]), the blue fluorescent luminescent material containing layer comprises blue fluorescent luminescent material and a host (¶ [0111] and ¶ [0056]), and wherein excitons are generated in each of the layers (¶ [0110]). Niboshi teaches wherein the blue fluorescent luminescent material in the blue fluorescent luminescent material containing layer includes a blue Triplet-Triplet Annihilation (TTA) material that generates a singlet exciton from a triplet exciton through a TTA phenomenon (¶ [0150]). Niboshi teaches the organic EL display device on a Thin Film Transistor (TFT) substrate (¶ [0029]), with a plurality of gate wiring lines and a plurality of source wiring lines connected to the TFT (¶ [0032]). Niboshi teaches the device as part of an apparatus further comprising a polarizing film and a touch sensor film (¶ [0081]).
Niboshi does not specifically exemplify a device wherein the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material is an amine-containing organic compound and the blue phosphorescent dopant comprises an organometallic compound and they meet all of the requirements of claims 5-6, 9-10, and 13-15.
Niboshi teaches specific examples of blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material including distyrylamine derivatives such as distyryldiamine compounds (¶ [0152]), which are a transition-metal-free compound.
Niboshi teaches examples of the blue phosphorescent dopant, including Firpic ( bis[2-(4,6-difluorophenyl)pyridinate-N, C2′]iridium picolinate) (¶ [0067]), which is an organometallic compound comprising transition metal iridium and a ligand with a fluoro group, and meet claimed Formula 12, (and corresponds to PD17 in the instant specification). As evidenced by Baranoff et al., Firpic maximum emission is at about 472 nm (page 8352, first column, second paragraph), which falls within the claimed range for an emission peak wavelength of 400 to 500 nm.
Niboshi teaches the device obtains the beneficial properties of a good balance between luminous efficiency and color level (¶ [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material as a distyrylamine derivative such as a distyryldiamine and the blue phosphorescent dopant as FIrpic, because it would have been choosing from the list of materials specifically disclosed by Niboshi, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compounds useful as the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material and the blue phosphorescent dopant in the device of Niboshi and possessing the beneficial properties taught by Niboshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising combinations of the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material and the blue phosphorescent dopant having the beneficial properties as described above taught by Niboshi in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Because the emission peak of the emission peak wavelength of the distyrylamine derivatives such as distyryldiamine is blue and Firpic's maximum emission is at about 472 nm, the combination of these two also falls in a range of 400 to 500 nm.
Therefore, modified device comprising the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material as a distyrylamine derivative such as a distyryldiamine and the blue phosphorescent dopant as FIrpic meets claims 1-10 and 13-20.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niboshi et al. WO 2019064333 A1, see English language equivalent US-20200388780-A1 referred to herein as "Niboshi", and further in view of Fleetham et al. Chem. Mater. 2016, 28, 3276-3282. Additionally supporting evidence provided by Song et al. Optoelectron. Lett. Vol. 2 No. 5, 15 Sept 2006.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-20, Niboshi teaches an organic EL display comprises an anode electrode, an organic EL layer, and a cathode electrode (¶ [0110]), wherein the organic EL layer comprises a hole injection layer (HIL), a hole transport layer (HTL), a light-emitting layer unit including a plurality of luminescent material containing layers, an electron transport layer (ETL), and an electron injection layer (EIL) are layered in this order from the anode electrode (¶ [0046]). Niboshi teaches wherein the light-emitting layer unit comprises a blue phosphorescent luminescent material containing layer and a blue fluorescent luminescent material containing layer layered in this order from the anode electrode (¶ [0111]), wherein the blue phosphorescent luminescent material containing layer comprises a blue phosphorescent luminescent material and a host (¶ [0111] and ¶ [0056]), the blue fluorescent luminescent material containing layer comprises blue fluorescent luminescent material and a host (¶ [0111] and ¶ [0056]), and wherein excitons are generated in each of the layers (¶ [0110]). Niboshi discloses wherein the blue fluorescent luminescent material in the blue fluorescent luminescent material containing layer includes a blue Triplet-Triplet Annihilation (TTA) material that generates a singlet exciton from a triplet exciton through a TTA phenomenon (¶ [0150]). Niboshi teaches the organic EL display device on a Thin Film Transistor (TFT) substrate (¶ [0029]), with a plurality of gate wiring lines and a plurality of source wiring lines connected to the TFT (¶ [0032]). Niboshi teaches the device as part of an apparatus further comprising a polarizing film and a touch sensor film (¶ [0081]).
Niboshi does not specifically exemplify a device wherein the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material is an amine-containing organic compound and the blue phosphorescent dopant comprises an organometallic compound and they meet all of the requirements of claims 5-6, 9-12, and 14-15.
Niboshi teaches specific examples of blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material including distyrylamine derivatives such as distyryldiamine compounds (¶ [0152]), which are a transition-metal-free compound.
Niboshi teaches the device obtains the beneficial properties of a good balance between luminous efficiency and color level (¶ [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material as a distyrylamine derivative such as a distyryldiamine, because it would have been choosing from the list of materials specifically disclosed by Niboshi, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compounds useful as the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material in the device of Niboshi and possessing the beneficial properties taught by Niboshi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising combinations of the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material having the beneficial properties as described above taught by Niboshi in order to pursue the known options within their technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.(E).
Fleetham et al. discloses a deep blue phosphorescent emitting for use in organic light emitting diodes (Abstract). Fleetham teaches that the emission spectra of PtNON shows a deep blue emission peaking at 438 nm (Abstract) and that it is highly efficient (page 3280, Conclusion).
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 Niboshi by forming the blue phosphorescent dopant out of PtNON, as taught by Fleetham et al.. One would have been motivated to do so because Niboshi teaches a blue phosphorescent luminescent material containing layer and Fleetham et al. teaches a blue phosphorescent material PtNON suitable for use as a dopant in an organic light emitting diode. 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, Fleetham teaches PtNON to be a highly efficiency deep blue phosphorescent emitter and therefore forming the blue phosphorescent dopant in the device of Niboshi of PtNON would yield the benefit of high efficiency and deep blue emission, as described above.
Because the emission peak of the emission peak wavelength of the distyrylamine derivative such as a distyryldiamine is blue and that of PtNON is 438 nm, the combination of these two also falls in a range of 400 to 500 nm.
Therefore, modified device comprising the blue fluorescent luminescent TTA material as a distyrylamine derivative such as a distyryldiamine and the blue phosphorescent dopant as PtNON meets claims 1-12 and 14-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hack et al. US-20200373360-A1, cited on the IDS of 04/17/2025 teaches a phosphorescent blue layer and a fluorescent blue layer used together in the OLED stack (¶ [0054]).
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.
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