DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/19/2021 are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2008062773 A1 (herein referred to as Arakane) in view of (a) Takada (US 2011/0050092), (b) Thompson et al (US 7,294,849), and (c) CN 201911205731A (herein referred to as CN) as evidenced by Ikeda et al (US 2009/0021160).
With regards to claim 1, Arakane teaches an electroluminescent device (title), comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the light emitting layer comprises a host material (0009) and a dopant material (0036); and the host material comprises a component having the general formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
279
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When L1 is a single bond, R13-20 comprises hydrogen (0041), and R11 and R12 are aryl groups, said compound reads on the elected species.
Arakane does not teach that the host material should comprise two components wherein the component A and the component B are isomers of each other. However, Takada teaches electroluminescent materials (abstract). Takada notes the prior art teaches the mixture of two structural isomers mixed at a predetermined ration improved stability, light emission properties, and durability of electroluminescent materials (0014). Takada further teaches using a mixture of electrochemical materials which are structural isomers at a predetermined content resulting in a material has excellent stability when stored under a visible light and high temperature conditions (0016). Ikeda teaches blends of structural isomer of anthracene base electrochemical materials can also be expected to exhibit improved properties (see all). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a blend of structural isomers in the invention disclosed in Arakane. The motivation for doing so would have been that there is a reasonable expectation of success that such a blend of structural isomers will exhibit improved electrochemical properties as Takada teaches blends of structural isomers in electrochemical compounds are known to have improved electrochemical properties.
With regards to claim 3, Takada teaches the amount of component A relative to component B is a result effective variable. Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of structural isomer in the composition in order to improve the electrochemical properties of the resulting composition. With regards to the relationship of the highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the component A, and the highest occupied molecular orbital energy level of the component B, the examiner takes the position said relationship is inherent to the compound A and compound B rendered obvious by the prior art since said compounds are compositionally identical to the elected species.
With regards to claim 5, Arakane teaches the electroluminescent device may further comprise an electron block layer disposed adjacent to the light emitting layer (0004) to prevent holes from being ejected from the anode (0002). Said teaching is understood to anticipate the claimed electron block layer between the anode and the light emitting layer, wherein a material of the electron block layer.
With regard to claim 6, Arakane teaches the host material may consists of the component A and the component B as no other elements are disclosed as being essential.
With regards to claim 7, Arakane in view of renders obvious the claimed component A and component B for the reason stated above.
With regards to claim 10, Arakane teaches the device may further comprise a hole injection layer (0013 and Figure 1), a hole transport layer (0013 and Figure 1), and an electron block layer sequentially stacked between the anode and the light emitting layer, and a hole block layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer sequentially stacked between the light emitting layer and the cathode (0013, Figure 1; 0072).
With regards to claim 11, Arakane teaches a display apparatus comprising the electroluminescent device according to claim 1 (0058).
With regards to claims 12, Arakane renders obvious the use of the component A and compound B in the inventions of claim 3.
Adachi in view of Takada does not teach the relationship between the HOMO of the host and dopant materials. However, Thompson teaches the HOMO energy levels of the phosphorescent dopants are typically higher in energy than those of the matrix materials into which they are doped. This means that the dopants are capable of trapping holes and transporting them through the matrix if the doping level is high enough (col 4, lines 44+). A higher HOMO typically means a value that is less negative. Thus, the absolute value of the HOMO of the dopant would be understood to be less than the absolute value of the HOMOs of the host materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a dopant meeting the claimed HOMO relationship relative to the hosts materials. The motivation for doing so would have been Thompson teaches the HOMO energy levels of the phosphorescent dopants are typically higher (less negative) in energy than those of the matrix materials into which they are doped so the dopants are capable of trapping holes and transporting them through the matrix. The examiner notes the relationship between the HOMO values of the two hosts material is understood to be met for the reasons noted above.
Adachi in view of Takada also does not teach the relationship between the HOMO of the electron block layer and the host materials. However, CN teaches in order to make the electron block layer have the function of blocking the excitons generated in the light-emitting layer, the difference between the HOMO energy level of the material of the electron block layer and the HOMO energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is less than or equal to 0.3 eV (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an electron block layer with a difference between the HOMO energy level of the material of the electron block layer and the HOMO energy level of the host material of the light-emitting layer is less than or equal to 0.3 eV in order to make the electron block layer have the function of blocking the excitons generated in the light-emitting layer and to effectively reduce the turn-on voltage. The examiner notes the relationship between the HOMO values of the two hosts material is understood to be met for the reasons noted above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787