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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on February 19, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on September 8, 2025.
Claims 1 – 13 have been canceled.
Claims 14 – 26 have been added.
Claims 14 – 26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on August 15, 2023, and September 18, 2023 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
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 14, 15, and 18 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiomi (WO2020122118A1, using US20220081450A1 as the official English language translation).
As per claims 14, 15, 18, and 20 – 25, Shiomi teaches:
An organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode a cathode, and an emitting layer provided between the anode and the cathode, wherein the emitting layer comprises a first compound that fluorescence, a second compound that exhibits delayed fluorescence and a third compound (Shiomi teaches the manufacturing of example devices in [0746 – 0756]. The device has a structure of anode/HIL/HTL/EBL/EML/HBL/ETL/cathode. The emitting layer is taught to have a fluorescent compound, a delayed fluorescent compound, and a matrix material. As the device does not contain a metal complex, the device of Shiomi meets the claimed limitations of claims 24 and 25.)
The first compound is represented by a formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
148
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(The fluorescent compound in Example 12 of Shiomi is compound RD
PNG
media_image2.png
272
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R1001, R1004, R1005, R2002, and R2001, are all a substituted aryl group having 6 ring forming atoms; R1003 and R1002 are both hydrogen; Z1002 and Z1001 are both a halogen atom.)
The second compound is represented by a formula (2)
PNG
media_image3.png
138
166
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(The delayed fluorescent material in Example 12 of Shiomi is TADF-3
PNG
media_image4.png
284
284
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein X4 is a sulfur atom, R161 to R168 are all hydrogen. While TADF-3 teaches an alkyl substituent on the polycyclic ring group, TADF-3 does not specifically teach an aryl substituent on the ring as required by the claimed Formula. However, in the definition for the polycyclic group represented by Formula 3-10 of Shiomi in [0316], Shiomi teaches that the R groups may be represented by aryl groups. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the alkyl substituent with an aryl group and arrive at a compound of the claimed Formula. When modified in this way, the modified compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein R137 is an aryl group and the remaining R135 to R140 groups are hydrogen atoms.)
The third compound is represented by a formula (3)
PNG
media_image5.png
232
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(The matrix material in Example 12 of Shiomi is Compound 12
PNG
media_image6.png
200
342
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which reads on the claimed Formula wherein X1 and Y1 are both oxygen atoms; L1 is a single bond; all the R groups are hydrogen atoms.)
A singlet energy of the first compound S1(M1), a singlet energy of the second compound S2(M2), and a singlet energy of the third compound S1(M3) satisfy a relationship of a numerical formula S1(M3)>S1(M2)>S1(M1) (In Tables 5 – 7, Shiomi teaches that RD has a singlet energy level of 2.02, TADF-3 has a singlet energy level of 2.32 and Compound 13 has a singlet energy level of 3.38. These values fall within the claimed relationship. While the claimed TADF material has been slightly modified from that of TADF-3, it is the Examiner’s position that the singlet energy level of the compound would be reasonably close as the modification is minor and the combination of compounds would still fall within the claimed relationship.)
Shiomi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Shiomi 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 improved efficiency and reduced voltage ([0785]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 19, while the substituent in the modified TADF-3 compound above is not in the claimed R136 position, in Formula 3-10 of Shiomi in [0316], Shiomi teaches that any of the locations on the polycyclic group may be represented by an aryl substituent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the substituent and arrive at the claimed compound.
Shiomi includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Shiomi 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 improved efficiency and reduced voltage ([0785]), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
As per claim 26, Shiomi teaches:
An electronic device comprising the organic electroluminescence device ([0015]: “An object of the invention is to provide a high-performance organic EL device, for instance, an organic EL device configured to emit light with a long lifetime, and an electronic device including the organic EL device.”)
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiomi (WO2020122118A1, using US20220081450A1 as the official English language translation) as applied to claims 14, 15, and 18 – 26 above and further in view of Nakano (US20220263030A1).
As per claims 16 and 17, Shiomi teaches that the fluorescent material is represented by
PNG
media_image7.png
116
314
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0429]). Shiomi does not specifically teach or motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a compound of formula (4A) or formula (4B)
PNG
media_image8.png
188
540
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Nakano teaches an OLED wherein the emitting layer comprises a fluorescent compound, a second compound and a third compound ([0224 – 0225]). Nakano teaches that the second compound may be represented by
PNG
media_image9.png
286
264
media_image9.png
Greyscale
([0365]), which is similar to the TADF material of Shiomi. The third material in the electroluminescent layer of Nakano is
PNG
media_image10.png
214
340
media_image10.png
Greyscale
([0556]), which is similar to the matrix material of Shiomi. The fluorescent compound is represented by Formula (1)
PNG
media_image11.png
124
306
media_image11.png
Greyscale
([0227]). A specific Example of a compound represented by Formula (1) of Nakano is
PNG
media_image12.png
186
216
media_image12.png
Greyscale
on Page 73. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein in Formula (4B) Ar1001 and Ar1002 are both an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 ring carbon atoms; B1 and C1 are cross-linking structures represented by Formula (5A) in claim 17.
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 device of Shiomi with a dopant, such as that taught by Nakano, because the Formula of dopants in Shiomi encompasses dopants, such as the dopants of Nakano, and Nakano teaches that the claimed dopants are predictably suitable for use as dopants in similar emission layers, with similar TADF and matrix materials. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2023112808A1 teaches emission layers for OLEDs containing combinations of matrix, TADF and fluorescent materials and could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome WO2023112808A1 because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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
Prosecution Insights