DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 04/28/26.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2016/0254459 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0229277 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/28/26 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al. (US 2016/0254459 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0229277 A1) and Nakamura (US 2006/0113905 A1) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/28/26 is NOT overcome by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kawamura et al. (US 2016/0254459 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US
2019/0229277 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-8 and 11-18, Kawamura et al. discloses an organic
electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: anode, first light-emitting layer, charge-blocking layer, second light-emitting layer (first emission layer),
third light-emitting layer (second emission layer), electron-transporting zone, and
cathode ([0243]); the emission from the (blue, green, and red) light-emitting layers are
combined to form white light ([0248], [0276]-[0277], [0362]-[0365]). Kawamura et al. discloses the presence of an electron-injecting layer (inherently a hole-blocking layer) in the electron-transporting zone that is adjacent to the light-emitting layer (hence adjacent to the third light-emitting layer (second emission layer)) ([0026]). The light-emitting layers comprises a host material and fluorescent dopant material ([0013]). The host material is “preferably” an anthracene derivative ([0147]). An embodiment is disclosed wherein the second (blue) and third (green) light-emitting layers (70 and 130 Ǻ thick, respectively) each comprise BH-3 as host material ([0364]-[0365]); the structure of BH-3 is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 26) (first and second host) such that a14 = 0, b14 = 0, a13 = 0, b13 = 0, a11 = 1,
L11 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenylene), b11 = 1, R11 = unsubstituted C10
carbocyclic group (naphthyl), a12 = 0, b12 = 1, and R12 = unsubstituted C10 carbocyclic
group (naphthyl) of Applicant’s Formulae 1 and 1-1. The concentrations of the dopant materials in the second and third light-emitting layers are at 5 and 10 mass %,
respectively ([0364]-[0365]). Blue dopant materials include aminopyrene derivatives
such as the following ([0149]):
PNG
media_image2.png
276
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 24) (first dopant) (which can easily be used instead in the second light-emitting
layer in the embodiment) such that c23 = c24 = 0, c21 = c22 = 1, and Ar21-22 =
Applicant’s Formula 2-1 (with a25-27 = 0, b25 = 1, R25 = substituted C6 carbocyclic
group (isopropyl-substituted phenyl), b26 = 1, and R26 = C12 heterocyclic group
(dibenzofuranyl)) of Applicant’s Formula 2; R21-24 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Formula 2-2. Kawamura et al. discloses that dopant materials for green emission include boron
complexes in combination with anthracene derivative as host material ([0265]-[0266],
[0270]). However, Kawamura et al. does not explicitly disclose a second dopant as
recited in Claim 1.
Hatakeyama et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image3.png
170
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 14) such that b31-33 = 0, a31-33 = 0, rings CY31-33 = C6 carbocyclic group
(benzene), and R34-35 = unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group (phenyl) of Applicant’s
Formula 3. Hatakeyama et al. discloses that its inventive compounds serve as dopant
material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in a
device with high efficiency (Abstract; [0080]). It would have been obvious to substitute
compound (1-1) as disclosed by Hatakeyama et al. for the dopant present in the third
light-emitting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Kawamura et al. The
motivation is provided by the fact that the substitution merely involves an exchange of
one known emitter for a functional equivalent (i.e., another green dopant material);
additional motivation exists, including from the disclosure of Hatakeyama et al. which
teaches that the use of its inventive compounds results in a device with high efficiency.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, it is the position of the Office that the use of
compounds BD-1 and (1-1) and disclosed by Kawamura et al. and Hatakeyama et al.,
respectively, would inherently read on the wavelength limitations as recited in the
claims. Evidence is provided by the fact that the compounds are exactly identical to the
Applicant’s preferred embodiments for the first and second dopants (FD23 and DF8,
respectively, as shown on pages 84 and 87 of the present national phase publication).
7. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kawamura et al. (US 2016/0254459 A1) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US
2019/0229277 A1) as applied above and in further view of Nakamura (US
2006/0113905 A1).
Kawamura et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. discloses the electronic apparatus
of Claim 18 as shown above. Kawamura et al. discloses its organic electroluminescent
(EL) devices to be applicable to the construction of displays ([0427]). However,
Kawamura et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al. does not explicitly disclose the specific
electronic apparatus as recited in the claims.
Nakamura discloses a method of display device construction utilizing organic EL
devices (OLEDs) which can suppress degradation and realize high display quality and
long lifetime (Abstract; [0008]). The construction comprises a thin-film transistor (20)
comprising a source electrode (20S) and a drain electrode (20D) electrically connected
to the anode (41) of an organic EL device (40); a polarizer plate PL further exists on the
display to suppress ambient light reflection (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to
utilize the method as disclosed by Nakamura for the construction of displays comprising
the organic EL device as disclosed by Kawamura et al. in view of Hatakeyama et al.
The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Nakamura, which is directed to a known
and viable method of display device construction utilizing OLEDs, the use of which
results in the suppression of degradation and high display quality and long lifetime.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-17 with respect to the previously cited prior art based on Kawamura et al. have been considered but is not persuasive. As stated above and repeated herein, Kawamura et al. discloses the presence of an electron-injecting layer (inherently a hole-blocking layer as it is a source of electrons) in the electron-transporting zone that is adjacent to the light-emitting layer ([0026]); such a disclosure can be combined with the disclosure on paragraph [0243] to produce a device wherein a hole-blocking layer exists directly adjacent to the third light-emitting layer (second emission layer).
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-
1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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/patentcenter 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights