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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 15, 2025 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed November 14, 2025 and the RCE filed December 15, 2025, which amends claim 1 and cancels claims 3 and 4. Claims 1 and 5-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed November 14, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0245148) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) as set forth in the Office action mailed September 15, 2025. The applicant cancels claims 3 and 4; therefore, the claims are no longer pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument that The combination of Park and Cha do not lead to the applicant’s claimed invention because Cha teaches adding an electron blocking layer between the auxiliary layer and the emitting layer and does not teach adding a second auxiliary layer, the Office points out that the exact names layers in the prior art do not determine if the layers meet the applicant’s claimed invention. The structure of the device and the composition of the layers is what determines if the prior art meets the applicant’s claimed invention and not the names of the layers. The prior art combination of Park and Cha (see below) leads to a device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an auxiliary layer (applicant’s first auxiliary layer), an electron blocking layer (applicant’s second auxiliary layer), a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode, where the auxiliary layer (applicant’s first auxiliary layer) is composed of
PNG
media_image1.png
168
207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
160
186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image3.png
166
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are a few examples and the electron blocking layer (applicant’s second auxiliary layer) is composed of
PNG
media_image4.png
176
197
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
173
183
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image6.png
163
192
media_image6.png
Greyscale
are a few examples. These compounds are the same as the applicant’s claimed compounds for the first auxiliary layer and the second auxiliary layer. The combination of Park and Cha would lead to a device comprising layers in direct contact with each other and composed of the same material as taught and claimed by the applicant. The device of the combination would be the same as the claims except for the names of the layers, but as previously mentioned it is structure of the layers and the composition of the layers and not the names that are important to the invention. The Office points out names of layers very throughout that art. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 15 the applicant claims that the hole transport region can comprise an electron-blocking layer or an emission auxiliary layer, but both of these layers as shown in the specification are between the light emitting layer and the second auxiliary layer and claim 1 requires the second auxiliary layer to be in contact with the light emitting layer. Claim 15 does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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(s) 1, 5-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0245148) (hereafter “Park”) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) (hereafter “Cha”).
Regarding claims 1, 5-17, and 19, Park teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an auxiliary layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [0127]). Park teaches that the hole injection layer is composed of 2-TNATA,
PNG
media_image7.png
222
258
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and the hole transporting layer is composed of NPB,
PNG
media_image8.png
161
212
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0127]). Park teaches that the auxiliary layer is can be composed of the following compound,
PNG
media_image1.png
168
207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
160
186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
166
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are a few examples and are the same as the claimed first compounds in the instant application (paragraphs [0061] and [0127]). Park teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in electronic devices (paragraphs [0073] and [0074]).
Park does not teach where the electroluminescent device comprises a layer between the auxiliary layer and the light emitting layer.
Cha teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an electron blocking layer (applicant’s second auxiliary layer) in contact with the layer emitting layer between the hole transporting layer and the light emitting layer (paragraphs [0079] and [0141]-[0151]). Cha teaches that the electron blocking layer can be composed of the following compound,
PNG
media_image4.png
176
197
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
173
183
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image6.png
163
192
media_image6.png
Greyscale
are a few examples and the same as applicant’s claimed second compounds (paragraphs [0068] and [0141]-[0151]). Park teaches that using these compounds as electron blocking materials leads to device improve performance, service life, and efficiency (paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the device of Park to include the electron blocking layer (applicant’s second auxiliary layer) of Cha. The motivation would have been to improve the performance, service life, and efficiency of the device.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0245148) (hereafter “Park”) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) (hereafter “Cha”) as applied to claim 1, 5-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2014/0361255) (hereafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Cha does not teach where the hole injection or hole transporting layer further comprises a charge-generation material.
Hwang teaches that one can increase the conductivity of the hole injection layer or the hole transportation layer by adding a charge-generation material to the layer (paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Park in view of Cha to further include a charge-generation material. The motivation would have been to improve the conductivity of either the hole injection layer or the hole transportation layer.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0245148) (hereafter “Park”) in view of Cha et al. (US 2019/0296238) (hereafter “Cha”) as applied to claims 1, 5-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Hachiya et al. (US 2006/0232196) (hereafter “Hachiya”).
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches that the device can be used in electronic devices.
Park in view of Cha does not teach the structure of the device and the components the device can have.
Hachiya teaches electroluminescent devices that can be used in electronic devices (paragraph [0038]). Hachiya teaches that the device can comprise an color conversion member to change the color of the emitted light (paragraph [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Park in view of Cha to include the color conversion member as taught by Hachiya. The motivation would have been to change the color of emitted light out of the electroluminescent device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759