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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-6, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 20180151630 A1).
The examiner is still unsure of the patentability of the claims for a few reasons.
Based on the applicants table 1, the results of achieving a high current efficiency are based on simulation. The claim does not currently recite that the maximum current efficiencies are based on a simulated device. The examiner would like further clarity on whether the device is only simulated and achieving a high current efficiency or is the device fabricated and tested in real life to verify the current efficiency.
Second, the applicant’s argument states, “ the actual technical problem solved by the present application is how to maintain color coordinates within 0.110 ≤ CIEx ≤ 0.230 and 0.750 ≤ CIEy ≤ 0.820 while reaching CEmax,”. The prior art (see rejection of claim 1 below) discloses maximum current efficiency (Yamaoka: 57.8 cd/A) within the applicants claimed color coordinates (see table 8 of the prior art annotated in the action below) the examiner is unsure on what the inventive concept is because the prior art shows a maximum current efficiency and its corresponding color coordinates within the claimed range. However, the prior art does not show a CEmax ≥160. So the examiners question is what inventive concept is producing the CEmax≥160 ? because “the actual technical problem solved by the present application is how to maintain color coordinates within 0.110 ≤ CIEx ≤ 0.230 and 0.750 ≤ CIEy ≤ 0.820 while reaching CEmax,” is not a persuasive argument of inventiveness when prior art discuss using “organic luminescent dopant material” to achieve “a novel luminescent material with high efficiency and high color purity for ultra-pure green OLED devices” (Zhang, [0004])
At this time, the examiners interpretation of the inventive concept is the use of organic luminescent dopant material in the emission layer to produce a high efficiency/high color green device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the upper bound of CEmax.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1, 2, 3, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaoka et al. (US 20180151630 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240324460 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaoka discloses an organic electroluminescent device, at least comprising:
a substrate (per [0170]);
a first electrode (101) disposed on the substrate;
a second electrode (102) disposed over the first electrode; and
an organic layer (140) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode wherein
the first electrode (101) has high reflectivity, the second electrode (102) is translucent or transparent and the organic layer (140) further comprises an organic luminescent dopant material (per [0125]) wherein
color coordinates (CIEx, CIEy) of the organic electroluminescent device when maximum current efficiency CEmax is reached satisfy following conditions:
0.110 ≤ CIEx ≤ 0.230; (see table 8)
0.750 ≤ CIEy ≤ 0.820; (see table 8)
PNG
media_image1.png
361
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamaoka does not explicitly disclose:
the PL spectrum of the organic luminescent dopant material satisfies one of the following conditions:
28 nm < FWHM ≤ 32 nm, and 523 nm ≤ λmax ≤ 527 nm;
22 nm < FWHM ≤ 28 nm, and 523 nm ≤ λmax ≤ 527 nm;
16 nm < FWHM ≤ 22 nm, and 525 nm ≤ λmax ≤ 529 nm; or
FWHM ≤ 16 nm, and 529 nm ≤ λmax ≤ 533 nm.
However, Yamaoka does disclose:
“[0472] As shown in FIG. 22, the light-emitting element 1 has a peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of 631 nm and emits red light, the light-emitting element 2 has a peak wavelength of 529 nm and emits green light, and the light-emitting element 3 has a peak wavelength of 457 nm and emits blue light. In addition, in the light-emitting elements 1, 2, and 3, the full widths at half maximum of the electroluminescence spectra are 31 nm, 25 nm, and 15 nm, respectively.” And
“[0477] As shown in FIG. 26, the comparative light-emitting element 4 has a peak wavelength of the emission spectrum of 623 nm and emits red light, the comparative light-emitting element 5 has a peak wavelength of 527 nm and emits green light, and the comparative light-emitting element 6 has a peak wavelength of 460 nm and emits blue light. In addition, in the comparative light-emitting elements 4, 5, and 6, the full widths at half maximum of the electroluminescence spectra are 27 nm, 21 nm, and 18 nm, respectively.”
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Yamaoka for the PL spectrum of the organic luminescent dopant material satisfies one of the following conditions:28 nm < FWHM ≤ 32 nm, and 523 nm ≤ λmax ≤ 527 nm; 22 nm < FWHM ≤ 28 nm, and 523 nm ≤ λmax ≤ 527 nm; 16 nm < FWHM ≤ 22 nm, and 525 nm ≤ λmax ≤ 529 nm; or FWHM ≤ 16 nm, and 529 nm ≤ λmax ≤ 533 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 so as to have a “light-emitting element enabled light to be emitted with high color purity.” (Yamaoka, [0477])
Yamaoka does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the CEmax ≥ 160 cd/A;
However, Zhang discloses:
“The measured values of the fabricated devices were a peak wavelength at 520 nm, with a half-peak width of 29 nm and CIE color coordinate of (0.19, 0.74), a maximum external quantum efficiency of 35.2%, a maximum current efficiency of 132.9 cd/A, and a maximum power efficiency of 130.4 lm/W” in [0048]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Yamaoka and Zhang to achieve a CEmax ≥ 160 cd/A since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 in order to have an OLED “of high efficiency and ultra-pure green electroluminescence with high color purity, which can be applied to ultra-high definition display technology and other applications.” (Zhang, [0049])
Regarding claim 2, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, wherein the color coordinates satisfy: 0.150 ≤ CIEx ≤ 0.200. (see table 8)
Regarding claim 3, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, wherein the color coordinates satisfy: 0.750 ≤ CIEy ≤ 0.813. (see table 8)
Regarding claim 9, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode (101) is an anode, and the second electrode (102) is a cathode. ([0159], Fig. 1A])
Regarding claim 10, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, wherein average reflectivity of the first electrode (101) in a visible region is greater than 50% ([0162])
Regarding claim 11, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, wherein average transmittance of the second electrode (102) in a visible region is greater than 15%. ([0161])
Regarding claim 12, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode (101) comprises a material selected from a group consisting of Ag, Al, Ti, Cr, Pt, Ni, TiN, and from a combination of preceding materials with ITO and/or MoOx (molybdenum oxide); ([0160]) and
the second electrode (102) comprises a material selected from a group consisting of MgAg alloy, MoOx, Yb, Ca, ITO, IZO, and from a combination of preceding materials. ([0162])
Regarding claim 13, Yamaoka discloses a full-color display (per [0088]), comprising the organic electroluminescent device of claim 1. (Fig.11-18)
Regarding claim 14, Yamaoka discloses the full-color display (per [0134]) according to claim 13, wherein color coordinates of red light comprise (0.708, 0.292), and color coordinates of blue light comprise (0.131, 0.046). ([0257])
Regarding claim 15, Yamaoka discloses the full-color display according to claim 13, wherein BT.2020 coverage of the full-color display is greater than or equal to 85%. ([0257])
Regarding claim 16, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 2, wherein the color coordinates satisfy: 0.165 ≤ CIEx ≤ 0.175. (see table 8)
Regarding claim 17, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 3, wherein the color coordinates satisfy: 0.770 ≤ CIEy ≤ 0.800. (see table 8)
Regarding claim 18, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 10, wherein the average reflectivity of the first electrode (101) in the visible region is greater than 80%. ([0162])
Regarding claim 19, Yamaoka discloses the organic electroluminescent device according to claim 11, wherein the average transmittance of the second electrode (102) in the visible region is greater than 25%. ([0161])
Regarding claim 20, Yamaoka discloses the full-color display according to claim 15, wherein the BT.2020 coverage of the full-color display is greater than or equal to 95%. ([0257])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights