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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 27 April 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Li et al. (“Tetradentate Platinum(II) Complexes for Highly Efficient Phosphorescent Emitters and Sky Blue OLEDs”, Chemistry of Materials (2020) vol. 32, pp. 537-548.) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Examiner’s Note
The determination made during the interview of 16 April 2026 that the proposed amendment would not represent new matter was made in error. Upon further review of the specification as filed, it appears that support for the specific groups being recited in the specification was verified for the instant R11 but not the instant R10a.
However, as outlined below, rejections are made based on 35 U.S.C. 103 based upon the amendment as filed. This has been done in the event that Applicant can persuasively argue that the amendment with respect to the instant R10a does indeed have support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6, 8, and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Li et al. (“Tetradentate Platinum(II) Complexes for Highly Efficient Phosphorescent Emitters and Sky Blue OLEDs”, Chemistry of Materials (2020) vol. 32, pp. 537-548.) (hereafter “Li”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2015/0115205 A1) (hereafter “Kang”), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”) set forth in the last Office action 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1: The amended claim 1 recites that the instant R10a and R11 exclude specific groups when the instant Y1 is N.
The specification as filed specifically describes each of these groups as being optionally R11 in paragraphs [0096]-[00100].
However, the instant specification only describes that the instant R10a can broadly be a C3-C60 carbocyclic group or a C1-C60 heterocyclic group amongst other options that do not encompass the specific groups of the amendment. Therefore, the instant specification does not provide support for restricting the instant R10a from being “a substituted or unsubstituted fluorene group, a substituted or unsubstituted spirobifluorene group, a substituted or unsubstituted carbazole group, a substituted or unsubstituted dibenzosilole group, a substituted or unsubstituted dibenzothiophene group, and a substituted or unsubstituted dibenzofuran group” when the instant Y1 is N.
Regarding claims 2-20: Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-6 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (JP 2012-028548 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Sekine”) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “Kondakova”), and Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1) (hereinafter “Iwakuma”) and as evidenced by Nakayama et al. (US 2009/0230850 A1) (hereafter “Nakayama”).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-18: Sekine discloses an organic light emitting devices of Kang comprise a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode and comprising an emission layer {paragraphs [0180]-[0181] and Table 1: OLED Element 1-6}. The emission layer comprises a host material having the structure shown below {(paragraphs [0180]-[0181] and Table 1: OLED Element 1-6), (paragraph [0051]: Structure of Compound (57))}.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The light emitting layer further comprises a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant that is an transition metal-containing organometallic compound {paragraphs [0180]-[0181] and Table 1: OLED Element 1-6}.
Nakayama provided evidence that the emission layer emits blue light having a maximum emission wavelength of about 390 nm to about 490 nm {paragraphs [0021] and [0082]-[0083]: Compounds having the structure of Formulas A, B, or C emit light having a peak emission wavelength between 440 nm and 490 nm and include compound D-1, which has the same structure as the phosphorescent dopant of Sekine.}.
Sekine does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a second host.
Kondakova teaches that using multiple host materials provides beneficial physical properties such as improved film morphology {paragraph [0209]}.
Iwakuma teaches host materials that can be used for fluorescent light emitting materials in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device {(paragraphs [0009] and [0013]: The compounds of the disclosure of Iwakuma have the structure of general formula (1) or (2).), (paragraphs [0056]-[0057]: The compounds of the disclosure are useful as host materials.), (paragraphs [0056]-[0057] and [0065]: The light emitting material can be phosphorescent or fluorescent.)}.
Iwakuma exemplifies the compound shown below {(paragraph [0049]: Compounds having the structure of general formula (1) are exemplified by the compounds on pp. 5-27.), (p. 19 and paragraph [0154], the compound shown below)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
673
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The host materials of Iwakuma can be used to produce organic light-emitting devices with high efficiency and high color purity {paragraphs [0193] and [0201]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Sekine to have two host materials in the light-emitting layer, the first being host material of Sekine shown above, and the second being the compound of Iwakuma shown above, based on the teaching of Kondakova and Iwakuma. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements (the use of multiple host materials and the host material of Iwakuma) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The selection of Iwakuma’s compound shown above would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (the exemplified host compounds of Iwakuma), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additional host material to improve the film morphology of the light-emitting layer through the addition of a host material known to be used to produce devices with high efficiency and high color purity.
Regarding claim 8: Sekine as modified by Kondakova and Iwakuma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
The device of Sekine as modified by Kondakova and Iwakuma meets the limitations of the current claim 8 wherein the light-emitting layer does not comprise a boron containing compound, but rather comprises a transition metal containing organometallic compound.
Regarding claim 18: Sekine as modified by Kondakova and Iwakuma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
A light-emitting device is an electronic apparatus.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (JP 2012-028548 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Sekine”) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “Kondakova”), and Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1) (hereinafter “Iwakuma”) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Li et al. (“Tetradentate Platinum(II) Complexes for Highly Efficient Phosphorescent Emitters and Sky Blue OLEDs”, Chemistry of Materials (2020) vol. 32, pp. 537-548.) (hereafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 7: Sekine as modified by Kondakova and Iwakuma teaches all of the features with respect to claims 1 and 6, as outlined above.
Sekine does not exemplify a Pt metal complex having a tetradentate ligand that is used as the light-emitting dopant.
Li teaches Pt metal complexes for use as light-emitting dopants in organic light emitting devices {abstract and p. 545, Conclusions}.
Li exemplifies the compound shown below {Figure 2}.
PNG
media_image3.png
518
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li teaches that the compound shown above has a peak emission wavelength of 471 nm {Table 5}.
Li teaches that the compounds of Li have good efficiency and good stability {p. 544, 1st col., final paragraph through p. 545, 1st col., 1st paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the compound of Li shown above as the light emitting dopant of the light emitting layer of the device of Sekine, based on the teaching of Li. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices, which in this case means choosing a compound known to have good efficiency and good stability, as taught by Li.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (JP 2012-028548 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Sekine”) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “Kondakova”), and Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1) (hereinafter “Iwakuma”), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2002/0149710 A1) (hereinafter “Kim ‘710”).
Regarding claim 19: Sekine as modified by Kondakova and Iwakuma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
Sekine as modified by Kondakova and Iwakuma does not exemplify that the display device is a flat panel display or that the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor.
Kim ‘710 teaches flat panel display comprising organic light-emitting devices as the light-emitting elements {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0060]}.
The display comprises a thin-film transistor comprising a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an active layer {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraphs [0039] [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode, Element 260 is the source electrode, and Element 220-3 is the active layer.}
The first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to a source electrode or a drain electrode of a thin-film transistor {Figs. 3L and 4 as described in paragraph [0059]: Element 265 is the drain electrode and is in electrical contact with the electrode of the organic light-emitting device, Element 310.}.
Kim ‘710 sought to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield {abstract, paragraph [0019], and [0059]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Sekine by using the device as light-emitting elements of the flat panel display device of Kim ‘710, based on the teachings of Kim ‘710. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a flat panel display produced using reduced mask processes, increasing manufacturing yield, as taught by Kim ‘710.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (JP 2012-028548 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Sekine”) in view of Kondakova et al. (US 2007/0252516 A1) (hereinafter “Kondakova”), and Iwakuma et al. (US 2004/0086745 A1) (hereinafter “Iwakuma”), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0287985 A1) (hereafter “Kim ‘985”).
Regarding claim 20: Sekine as modified by Kondakova and Iwakuma teaches all of the features with respect to claim 18, as outlined above.
Sekine as modified by Kondakova and Iwakuma does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Sekine is incorporated into a display device comprising a color filter.
Kim ‘985 teaches a display device comprising a substrate, and on the substrate, a red pixel region, a green pixel region, and a blue pixel region, an organic light emitting device corresponding to each of the red, green, and blue pixel regions {Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0041]-[0044]}. The display device additionally comprising a color filter layer corresponding to the red, green, and blue pixel regions and disposed between the substrate and the organic light emitting diode {paragraphs [0050]-[0052]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device of Sekine by including the device in the display device structure of Kim ‘985 described above, based on the teaching of Kim ‘985. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights