DETAILED ACTION/EXAMINER’S COMMENT
This Office action responds to the amendments filed on 06/22/2026.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
Applicant’s response filed on 06/22/2026 in reply to the non-final rejection mailed on 03/23/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-18.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizumi (US 20120256204) in view of Fukagawa (US 20190081239) and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20210143352).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshizumi (see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0146) shows a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode 103 (see, e.g., para.0145);
a second electrode 107 (see, e.g., para.0145);
a first unit 703 (see, e.g., para.0147);
and a first layer 706-708,
wherein the first unit is positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (703 between 103 & 107, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
wherein the first unit comprises a first light-emitting material (light emitting organic compound, see, e.g., para.0159-0160),
wherein the first layer is positioned between the second electrode and the first unit (706-708 between 107 & 703, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
wherein the first layer 706-708 is in contact with the second electrode 107 (direct physical contact of the top surface of layer 708 of the first layer 706-708 and 107, see, e.g., fig. 8c)
wherein the first layer 706-708 comprises a second layer 706 (see, e.g., para.0170) and a third layer 708 (see, e.g., para.0170),
wherein the second layer is positioned between the third layer and the first unit (706 between 708 & 703, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
Yoshizumi, however, fails to show
wherein the second layer comprises a first organic compound and a second organic compound,
wherein the first organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than or equal to 8,
wherein the second organic compound comprises no pyridine ring, no phenanthroline ring, or one phenanthroline ring,
wherein the second organize compound comprises a triazine ring or a condensed heteroaromatic ring
wherein the condensed heteroaromatic ring comprises one pyrazine skeleton or one pyrimidine skeleton
Fukagawa (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Yoshizumi, teaches
wherein the second layer 5 (comprises first and second materials which are later referenced, see, e.g., para.0361) comprises a first organic compound (“first material”, see, e.g., para.0023) and a second organic compound (“second material”, see, para.0026, para.0108-0109),
wherein the first organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than or equal to 8 (pKa larger than 1, overlapping the range, see, e.g., para.0023),
wherein the second organic compound comprises no pyridine ring, no phenanthroline ring, or one phenanthroline ring (second material contains triazine derivative 2,4-bis(4-biphenyl)-6-(4'-(2-pyridinyl)-4-biphenyl)-[1,3,5]triazine which contains no phenanthroline ring, therefore one of the three conditions is satisfied for the second organic compound, see, e.g., para.0107-108),
wherein the second organic compound comprises a triazine ring (triazine derivative 2,4-bis(4-biphenyl)-6-(4'-(2-pyridinyl)-4-biphenyl)-[1,3,5]triazine contains a triazine ring, see, e.g., para.0108) or a condensed heteroaromatic ring
wherein the condensed heteroaromatic ring comprises one pyrazine skeleton or one pyrimidine skeleton
Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0019-0020, para.0416) states said materials for first and second organic compounds of the second layer would enhance the electron injection property.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the first and second organic compounds of Fukagawa in the device of Yoshizumi to enhance the electron injection property.
Regarding the claimed range “wherein the first organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than or equal to 8,” Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0019) teaches a range of the first organic compound having a pKa larger than 1, overlapping the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I) regarding the overlapping ranges.
Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, however, fails to show
and wherein the third layer comprises a material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state.
Yoshizumi (see, e.g., para.0152-0154, para.0170-0171), in view of Fukagawa, states the third layer 708 is a composite material layer.
Yamazaki (see, e.g., para.0127), in a similar device to Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, teaches a composite material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy would provide higher external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composite material of Fukagawa, to provide higher external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device.
Regarding the claimed range “and wherein the third layer comprises a material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3” Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa and further in view of Yamazaki (see, e.g., para.0127), teaches the same range.
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0019) and further in view of Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the first organic compound comprises a guanidine skeleton (see, e.g., para.0019).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa and further in view of Yamazaki (see, e.g., para.0120-0122, para.0127), shows the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the third layer comprises
a third organic compound (see, e.g., para.0120-121, para.0127)
and a fourth organic compound (see, e.g., para.0122),
wherein the third organic compound comprises at least one of a halogen group and a cyano group (cyano group and fluoride, see, e.g., para.0120-121, para.0127),
and wherein the fourth organic compound comprises at least one of a π-electron rich heteroaromatic ring (carbazole, see, e.g., para.0122) and aromatic amine.
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshizumi (see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0170-0177), in view of Fukagawa and further in view of Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the first layer comprises a sixth layer 707 (see, e.g., para.0170),
wherein the sixth layer is positioned between the second layer and the third layer (707 between 706 & 708, see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0175),
wherein the sixth layer comprises a first material (“a substance having a high electron-transport property” see, e.g., para.0177),
and wherein the first material has a LUMO level in a range of -4.3 eV to -3.0 eV inclusive (range of -5.0 eV to -3.0 eV overlapping the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizumi (US 20120256204) in view of Fukagawa (US 20190081239) & Yamazaki (US 20210143352) and further in view of Fukagawa #2 (US 20220310937).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, however, fails to show
wherein the first organic compound comprises a 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-2H-pyrimido[1,2-a]pyrimidine group.
Fukagawa #2 (see, e.g., para.0175, para.0286), in a similar device to Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, teaches that hexahydropyrimidopyrimidine would provide an excellent electron injection property.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hexahydropyrimidopyrimidine of Fukagawa #2 in the device of Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, to provide an excellent electron injection property.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizumi (US 20120256204) in view of Fukagawa (US 20190081239) & Yamazaki (US 20210143352) and further in view of Murer (US 20150005497).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, however, fails to show
wherein the first layer 706-708 comprises a material having a spin density lower than or equal to 1 x 1017 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state.
Yoshizumi (see, e.g., para.0170) states layer 707 of the first layer 706-708 is an electron relay layer.
Murer (see, e.g., para.0111) states NBphen would improve overall electron mobility between layers. NBphen has a spin density lower than or equal to 1 x 1017 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to use the NBphen of Murer, in the device of Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, to improve overall electron mobility between layers.
Claims 7, 8, 11, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizumi (US 20120256204) in view of Fukagawa (US 20190081239) and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20210143352).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshizumi (see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0146) shows a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode 103 (see, e.g., para.0145);
a second electrode 107 (see, e.g., para.0145);
a first unit 703 (see, e.g., para.0147);
and a first layer 706-708,
wherein the first unit is positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (703 between 103 & 107, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
wherein the first unit comprises a first light-emitting material (light emitting organic compound, see, e.g., para.0159-0160),
wherein the first layer is positioned between the second electrode and the first unit (706-708 between 107 & 703, see, e.g., fig. 8c)
wherein the first layer 706-708 is in contact with the second electrode 107 (direct physical contact of the top surface of layer 708 of the first layer 706-708 and 107, see, e.g., fig. 8c)
wherein the first layer comprises a second layer 706 (see, e.g., para.0170) and a third layer 708 (see, e.g., para.0170),
wherein the second layer is positioned between the third layer and the first unit (706 between 708 & 703, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
Yoshizumi, however, fails to show
wherein the second layer comprises a first organic compound and a second organic compound,
wherein the first organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than or equal to 8,
wherein the second organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa less than 4,
wherein the second organic compound comprises no pyridine ring, no phenanthroline ring, or one phenanthroline ring,
and wherein the third layer comprises a material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state.
Fukagawa (see, e.g., fig. 1), in a similar device to Yoshizumi, teaches
wherein the second layer 5 (first material used in layer 5, see, e.g., para.0361) comprises a first organic compound (first material can comprise two or more compounds, hereinafter “first compound”, see, e.g., para.0025) and a second organic compound (one of the compounds of the first material, hereinafter “second compound”, see, para.0025),
wherein the first organic compound (first compound) has an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than or equal to 8 (pKa larger than 1, overlapping the range, see, e.g., para.0023),
wherein the second organic compound (second compound) comprises no pyridine ring, no phenanthroline ring, or one phenanthroline ring (ketone compound such as methyl ethyl ketone does not comprise pyridine or phenanthroline, satisfies two of the conditions for the “or” limitation, see, e.g., para.0025, para.0105),
wherein the second organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa less than 4 (pKa larger than 1, overlapping the range, see, e.g., para.0023),
Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0019-0020, para.0416) states said materials for first and second organic compounds of the second layer would enhance the electron injection property.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the first and second organic compounds of Fukagawa in the device of Yoshizumi to enhance the electron injection property.
Regarding the claimed ranges “the first organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than or equal to 8” & “the second organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa less than 4 ” Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0019) teaches a range of an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than 1 overlapping the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05 (I) regarding the overlapping ranges.
Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, however, fails to show
and wherein the third layer comprises a material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state.
Yoshizumi (see, e.g., para.0152-0154, para.0170-0171), in view of Fukagawa, states the third layer 708 is a composite material layer.
Yamazaki (see, e.g., para.0127), in a similar device to Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, teaches a composite material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy would provide higher external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composite material of Yamazaki as the composite material of the third layer in the device of Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, to provide higher external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device.
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0019) and further in view of Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 7,
wherein the first organic compound comprises a guanidine skeleton (see, e.g., para.0019).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa and further in view of Yamazaki (see, e.g., para.0120-0122, para.0127), shows the light-emitting device according to claim 7,
wherein the third layer comprises
a third organic compound (see, e.g., para.0120-121, para.0127)
and a fourth organic compound (see, e.g., para.0122),
wherein the third organic compound comprises at least one of a halogen group and a cyano group (cyano group and fluoride, see, e.g., para.0120-121, para.0127),
and wherein the fourth organic compound comprises at least one of a π-electron rich heteroaromatic ring and aromatic amine (carbazole, see, e.g., para.0122).
Regarding Claim 12, Yoshizumi (see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0170-0177), in view of Fukagawa and further in view of Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 7,
wherein the first layer comprises a sixth layer 707 (see, e.g., para.0170),
wherein the sixth layer is positioned between the second layer and the third layer (707 between 706 & 708, see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0175),
wherein the sixth layer comprises a first material (“a substance having a high electron-transport property” see, e.g., para.0177),
and wherein the first material has a LUMO level in a range of -4.3 eV to -3.0 eV inclusive (range of -5.0 eV to -3.0 eV overlapping the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizumi (US 20120256204) in view of Fukagawa (US 20190081239) & Yamazaki (US 20210143352) and further in view of Fukagawa #2 (US 20220310937).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 7,
wherein the first organic compound comprises a 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-2H-pyrimido[1,2-a]pyrimidine group.
Fukagawa #2 (see, e.g., para.0175, para.0286), in a similar device to Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, teaches that hexahydropyrimidopyrimidine would provide an excellent electron injection property.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hexahydropyrimidopyrimidine of Fukagawa #2 in the device of Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, to provide an excellent electron injection property.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizumi (US 20120256204) in view of Fukagawa (US 20190081239) & Yamazaki (US 20210143352) and further in view of Murer (US 20150005497).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 7,
Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, however, fails to show
wherein the first layer 706-708 comprises a material having a spin density lower than or equal to 1 x 1017 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state.
Yoshizumi (see, e.g., para.0170) states layer 707 of the first layer 706-708 is an electron relay layer.
Murer (see, e.g., para.0111) states NBphen would improve overall electron mobility between layers. NBphen has a spin density lower than or equal to 1 x 1017 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to use the NBphen of Murer, in the device of Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Yamazaki, to improve overall electron mobility between layers.
Claims 13, 14, 17, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizumi (US 20120256204) in view of Fukagawa (US 20190081239) & Murer (US 20150005497) and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20210143352).
Regarding Claim 13, Yoshizumi (see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0146) shows a light-emitting device comprising:
a first electrode 103 (see, e.g., para.0145);
a second electrode 107 (see, e.g., para.0145);
a first unit 703 (see, e.g., para.0147),
and a first layer 706-708,
wherein the first unit is positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (703 between 103 & 107, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
wherein the first unit comprises a first light-emitting material (light emitting organic compound, see, e.g., para.0159-0160),
wherein the first layer is positioned between the second electrode and the first unit (706-708 between 107 & 703, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
wherein the first layer 706-708 is in contact with the second electrode 107 (direct physical contact of the top surface of layer 708 of the first layer 706-708 and 107, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
wherein the first layer comprises a second layer 706 (see, e.g., para.0170) and a third layer 106a1 (see, e.g., para.0148),
wherein the second layer is positioned between the third layer and the first unit (706 between 708 & 703, see, e.g., fig. 8c),
Yoshizumi, however, fails to show
wherein the second layer comprises a first organic compound and a second organic compound,
wherein the first organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than or equal to 8,
wherein the second organic compound has a polarization term δp of a solubility parameter δ of less than or equal to 4.0 MPa05,
wherein the second organic compound comprises no pyridine ring, no phenanthroline ring, or one phenanthroline ring,
and wherein the third layer comprises a material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state.
Fukagawa (see, e.g., fig. 1), in similar device to Yoshizumi, teaches
wherein the second layer comprises a first organic compound and a second organic compound,
wherein the first organic compound has an acid dissociation constant pKa larger than or equal to 8,
wherein the second organic compound comprises no pyridine ring, no phenanthroline ring, or one phenanthroline ring,
Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0019-0020, para.0416) states said materials for first and second organic compounds of the second layer would enhance the electron injection property.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the first and second organic compounds of Fukagawa in the device of Yoshizumi to enhance the electron injection property.
Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, however, fails to show
wherein the second organic compound has a polarization term δp of a solubility parameter δ of less than or equal to 4.0 MPa05,
and wherein the third layer comprises a material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state.
Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0107-0108) states the second material, mapped to the second organic compound is an electron transport material.
Murer (see, e.g., para.0111) states NBphen would facilitate electron transport between layers and improve overall electron mobility. NBphen has a polarization term δp of a solubility parameter δ of less than or equal to 4.0 MPa05.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to use the NBphen of Murer, in the device of Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, to facilitate electron transport between layers and improve overall electron mobility
Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Murer, however, fails to show
and wherein the third layer comprises a material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state.
Yoshizumi (see, e.g., para.0152-0154, para.0170-0171), in view of Fukagawa & Murer, states the third layer 708 is a composite material layer.
Yamazaki (see, e.g., para.0127), in a similar device to Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Murer, teaches a composite material having a spin density higher than or equal to 1 x 1018 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy would provide higher external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composite material of Yamazaki as the composite material of the third layer in the device of Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Murer, to provide higher external quantum efficiency of the light emitting device.
Regarding Claim 14, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa (see, e.g., para.0019) & Murer and further in view of Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 13,
wherein the first organic compound comprises a guanidine skeleton (see, e.g., para.0019).
Regarding Claim 16, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Murer and further in view of Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 13,
wherein the first layer comprises a material having a spin density lower than or equal to 1 x 1017 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state (OCA, see, e.g., para.0170).
Yoshizumi (see, e.g., para.0170) states layer 707 of the first layer 706-708 is an electron relay layer & Murer (see, e.g., para.0111) states NBphen is an electron transport material that would improve overall electron mobility between layers. NBphen has a spin density lower than or equal to 1 x 1017 spins/cm3 observed by electron spin resonance spectroscopy when the material is in a film state, and is used as the material of Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa & Murer and further in view of Yamazaki (see, e.g., para.0120-0122, para.0127), shows the light-emitting device according to claim 13,
wherein the third layer comprises
a third organic compound (see, e.g., para.0120-121, para.0127)
and a fourth organic compound (hole-transport material, see, e.g., para.0298),
wherein the third organic compound comprises at least one of a halogen group and a cyano group (cyano group and fluoride, see, e.g., para.0120-121, para.0127),
and wherein the fourth organic compound comprises at least one of a π-electron rich heteroaromatic ring and aromatic amine (carbazole, see, e.g., para.0122).
Regarding Claim 18, Yoshizumi (see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0170-0177), in view of Fukagawa & Murer and further in view of Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 13,
wherein the first layer comprises a sixth layer 707 (see, e.g., para.0170),
wherein the sixth layer is positioned between the second layer and the third layer (707 between 706 & 708, see, e.g., fig. 8c, para.0175),
wherein the sixth layer comprises a first material (“a substance having a high electron-transport property” see, e.g., para.0177),
and wherein the first material has a LUMO level in a range of -4.3 eV to -3.0 eV inclusive (range of -5.0 eV to -3.0 eV overlapping the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizumi (US 20120256204) in view of Fukagawa (US 20190081239), Murer (US 20150005497), & Yamazaki (US 20210143352) and further in view of Fukagawa #2 (US 20220310937).
Regarding Claim 15, Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, Murer, & Yamazaki, shows the light-emitting device according to claim 13,
Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, Murer, & Yamazaki, however, fails to show
wherein the first organic compound comprises a 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-2H-pyrimido[1,2-a]pyrimidine group.
Fukagawa #2 (see, e.g., para.0175, para.0286), in a similar device to Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, Murer, & Yamazaki, teaches that hexahydropyrimidopyrimidine would provide an excellent electron injection property.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hexahydropyrimidopyrimidine of Fukagawa #2 in the device of Yoshizumi, in view of Fukagawa, Murer, & Yamazaki, to provide an excellent electron injection property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to prior art rejections of claims 7-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of claims 7-18 in view of the Watabe reference have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 7, with respect to the prior art rejection been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art of record anticipates the amended limitations of claims 1, 7, & 13.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-5855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on 571-272-1657. 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.
/F.R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
