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 .
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 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).
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 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
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
With regards to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W02008062773 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), applicant argues claim 1 is amended based on claim 10. Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Arakane, Takada, Thompson, CN and Ikeda at least fails to disclose "the electroluminescent device further comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron block layer sequentially stacked between the anode and the light emitting layer;” wherein the electron block layer, the component A, and the component B satisfy the equations of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons of record.
Specifically, applicant argues the Office Action acknowledges that Adachi in view of Takada does not teach the relationship between the HOMO of the electron block layer and the host materials of the light emitting layer. Applicant argues the Office Action seems to rely on CN to address said limitations. Specifically, the Office Action asserts that: "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)." Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's reliance on CN. Specifically, applicant argues said reference teaches
the HOMO energy level difference between the electron blocking material and the hole transport material is <0.3 eV. Therefore, CN makes a distinction between the hole transport material and the host
material of the light emitting layer, and CN's HOMO energy level difference constraint only governs the electron blocking material and the hole transport material, and has no bearing on the host material of the light emitting layer. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as the teachings with regards the difference in HOMO and its effect on turn-on voltage is equally applicable to electron blocking layers and emissive layers in the electroluminescent device. For example, CN 111933812 teaches the HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer 240 is less than or equal to the HOMO energy level of the host material of the organic light emitting layer 220. Thus, the electron blocking layer 240 and the organic light emitting layer 220 of the HOMO energy level is close to the hole injection and transmission, which is good for reducing the blue light emitting unit 21 of the starting voltage. Similarly, CN 111640878 teaches the HOMO energy level of the electron blocking material-HOMO energy level of the host material is less than 0.2eV, so that the electron is easily injected into the organic light emitting layer EML over the barrier, avoiding large driving voltage, and low light emitting efficiency. Thus, the rejection is maintained for reasons of record.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights