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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on June 23, 2026.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed June 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 8, 10 and 13 – 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue as set forth in the office action filed March 26, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2 – 7, 9, 10, and 18 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue as set forth in the office action filed March 26, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano as set forth in the office action filed March 26, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed June 23, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 10 – 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano and further in view of Yoon as set forth in the office action filed March 26, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US20210395233A1).
As per claims 1 – 6, 8, and 13 – 17, Takahashi teaches:
A light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode, and an emission layer between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0386 – 0388]: “The organic EL device according to another aspect of the invention has an organic layer between a pair of electrodes formed of the cathode and the anode. The organic layer includes at least one layer composed of an organic compound… In one embodiment, the at least one layer of the organic layers is an emitting layer. In one embodiment, when the emitting layer contains the compound represented by Formula 1-1.”)
Wherein the emission layer comprises a first compound represented by Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
250
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Takahashi teaches a compound of (1-1A)
PNG
media_image2.png
136
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0179]), wherein rings A, B, C and D are selected from a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 to 50 carbon atoms or a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic ring having 5 to 50 atoms ([0009 – 0011]). A specific formula within the scope of Formula (1-1A) is Formula 1-4
PNG
media_image3.png
228
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
([0407]), wherein two of the R groups may be bonded with each other to form a structure including a benzofuran or a benzothiophene ring fused to the six-membered ring ([0236]). A specific compound taught by Takahashi is
PNG
media_image4.png
168
320
media_image4.png
Greyscale
on Page 24, which does not contain the sulfur atoms claimed. However, in Formula (1-4), Takahashi teaches that the extended fused ring system may be a benzofuran or a benzothiophene ring ([0236]), therefore it would have been obvious to replace the oxygen atoms in the above compound with sulfur atoms. Additionally, the compound does not contain the aryl substituents required by condition (2) of claim 1. However, in the definition of Formula (1-4), the B1 and C1 rings can be selected from substituted aryl and heteroaryl groups ([0009 – 0011]). Takahashi teaches compounds such as
PNG
media_image5.png
192
276
media_image5.png
Greyscale
on Page 40, which contain phenyl substituents on the B1 and C1 rings in the positions corresponding to claimed R6 and R13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the compound of Takahashi shown above to include phenyl substituents. When modified in this way to replace the oxygen atoms with sulfur atoms and to provide aryl substituents on the B1 and C1 rings, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R3 and R4 and R10 and R11 are both bonded to each other to form a substituent represented by Formula 2; the remaining R groups are hydrogen. The compound is represented by Formula 7-2 in condition (2) of claim 1 and 13 and claims 6 and 18, wherein A4-1 and A9-1 are both an aryl group represented by Formula 8-1 in claims 7 and 19. This compound reads on Formula 3-1 of claims 2 and 14, Formula 4-1 in claims 3 and 15, Formula 5-1 in claims 4 and 16, Formula 6-1 in claims 5 and 17, and Formula 9 in claim 8. This compound is the same as claimed compound 43
PNG
media_image6.png
134
146
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in claims 9 and 20.)
Takahashi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Takahashi being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of an organic EL device having a high efficiency ([0006]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Takahashi teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Takahashi as Takahashi demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US20210395233A1) as applied to claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 20 above, and further in view of Yoon (US20200308209A1).
As per claims 10 – 12, Takahashi does not teach:
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a second compound represented by Formula H-1
PNG
media_image7.png
220
482
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a third compound represented by Formula H-2
PNG
media_image8.png
178
448
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Wherein the emission layer further comprises a fourth compound represented by Formula D-1
PNG
media_image9.png
360
510
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches a light emitting device with an emission layer that includes a first host, a first dopant and a second dopant (Abstract). Yoon teaches that the second dopant may include a polycyclic compound represented by Formula 11(4)
PNG
media_image10.png
162
294
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y11 and Y12 may be a single bond, and Y15 can be N ([0343 – 0346]). This polycyclic compound is similar to the polycyclic compound of Takahashi. Yoon teaches that the first dopant is a metal complex that can be selected from
PNG
media_image11.png
146
318
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on claimed Formula D-1 wherein Q1 to Q4 are each C; C1 and C4 are each a substituted heterocycle having 7 ring forming carbon atoms; C2 and C3 are each an unsubstituted hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; L12 is *-O-*; L11 and L13 are direct linkages; b1 to b3 are 1; R31 and R34 are both an unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 carbon atom and d1 and d4 is 1; bothR32 and R33 are hydrogen. Yoon teaches that the emission layer may contain both a first and second host, wherein the first host is a hole transporting compound and the second host may be an electron transporting compound so that the first and second host materials form an exciplex ([0123]). Yoon teaches that the first host may be selected from compounds including compound H19
PNG
media_image12.png
156
296
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, which reads on Formula H-1 wherein L1 is an unsubstituted arylene group having 6 ring-forming carbon atoms; Ar1 is a substituted aryl group having 14 ring-forming carbon atoms; both R21 and R22 are hydrogen. Yoon teaches that the second host may be selected from compounds including compound H36
PNG
media_image13.png
250
334
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, which reads on compound H-2 wherein Z1 to Z3 are N; R23 and R24 are both an unsubstituted aryl group having 6 ring forming carbon atoms and R25 is a substituted aryl group having 6 ring forming carbon atoms. Yoon teaches that by using this particular combination of materials in a light emitting layer, an OLED can be produced that has low driving voltage, high efficiency and improved lifespan ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light emitting layer of Takahashi with two host materials and an additional dopant material, wherein the compounds are of the claimed Formulas, motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED that has low driving voltage, high efficiency and improved lifespan as taught by Yoon ([0005]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
