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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed January 28, 2026, which amends claims 1, 7-10, 14, 18, and 19, cancels claim 4, and adds claims 21-25. Claims 1-3 and 5-25 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed January 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 7, 8, 10, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in the Office action mailed October 1, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed January 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2020/0062778) in view of Choi et al. (US 2008/299365) as set forth in the Office action mailed October 1, 2025.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed January 28, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2020/0062778) in view of Choi et al. (US 2008/299365) and Thomson et al. (US 6,242,115) as set forth in the Office action mailed October 1, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-25 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-19, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the specification does not contain support for the limitation “the second organic layer is in direct contact with the third organic layer” combined with the limitation “a fourth organic layer is comprised between the second organic layer and the third organic layer, wherein the fourth organic layer is made of the second organic material”. The specification has support for both the limitations in a device independently, but does not contain support when the second and third layers are in direct contact and are further separated by the fourth layer between the two layers.
Claims 15-19, 24, and 25 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-19, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of the limitations, “the second organic layer is in direct contact with the third organic layer” and “a fourth organic layer is comprised between the second organic layer and the third organic layer, wherein the fourth organic layer is made of the second organic material” is indefinite. It is unclear how both the second layer and the third layer can be in direct contact with each other, while also having a fourth layer between the second layer and a fourth layer. There is no description in the specification where a device of this structure is made.
Claims 15-19, 24, and 25 are rejected due to the dependence of the claims on claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 20, 21, and 23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or make obvious claimed electroluminescent device. The closest prior art Cui et al. (US 2020/0062778) (hereafter “Cui”) teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0222]-[0227], [0270]-[0293], and [0301]-[0304]). Cui teaches that the electron injection layer is composed of Liq (paragraphs [0270] and [0301]). Cui teaches that the light emitting layer can be composed of a host material and a dopant (paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]). Cui teaches that the host material can be
PNG
media_image1.png
136
209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
140
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]).
PNG
media_image1.png
136
209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
has a HOMO of -5.53 and
PNG
media_image2.png
140
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a HOMO of -5.39 as taught by the applicant’s specification. Cui teaches the hole injection material can be
PNG
media_image3.png
196
175
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]), which are the same as claimed by the applicant and has a LUMO of -5.17 eV as taught by the applicant’s specification. Cui teaches that the hole transporting layer is composed of
PNG
media_image4.png
201
276
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and can have a thickness of 80 nm or 120 nm (paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]). Seo shows that the HOMO of
PNG
media_image4.png
201
276
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is -5.36 eV (paragraph [0276]). Cui teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in a display assembly (paragraph [0061]). The devices of Cui all have the electron blocking layer present between the light emitting layer and the hole transporting layer and the prior art fails to teach or making obvious modifying the device of Cui to arrive at the applicant’s claimed invention. Given the lack of teachings in the prior art, claims 1-3, 5-13, 20, 21, and 23 are allowed.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights