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 30, 2026, which amends claims 22. Claims 1-33 are pending, where claims 12 and 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 and 16-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 30, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species, the first organic material and the second organic material are mutually different, and the emitting unit comprises one light emitting layer, in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 20-26 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 claims 20-26, condition (i) and condition (ii) are indefinite. It is unclear structure of the compounds with the different cross-linking limitations. Furthermore, it unclear what is meant by cross-linking at one site and cross-linking at two sites. It is unclear how condition (i) can have cross-linking at two sites, but the cross-linking cannot be double bonds. The Office points out that none of the examples in the specification show a compound that would meet this limitation; therefore, it is unclear the structure of the compound.
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) 1-11, 13-15, and 20-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2016/0043327) (hereafter “Yoo”) in view Nishimura et al. (WO 2015/162912) (hereafter “Nishimura”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, Sado et al. (WO 2019/088231), where Sado et al. (US 2021/0013439) (hereafter “Sado”) is used as the English equivalent, Huang et al. (CN 108658953) (hereafter “Huang”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, and Ito et al. (US 2008/0166594) (hereafter “Ito”).
Regarding claims 1-11, 13-15, and 20-33, Yoo teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer in contact with the anode, a hole transporting layer in contact with the hole injection layer, a first light emitting layer in contact with the hole transporting layer, an electron transporting layer, a charge generation layer, a second hole transporting layer, a second light emitting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0209]-[0220]). Yoo teaches that the first light emitting layer comprises a blue fluorescent dopant and a host material and the second light emitting layer comprising a phosphorescent dopant and a host material (paragraphs [0209]-[0220]). Yoo does not limit the material of the hole injection layer (paragraph [0063]). Yoo does not limit the material of the hole transporting layer and teaches that the layer should be between 1 and 150 nm and is composed NPD (paragraphs [0064] and [0211]). Yoo teaches that the charge generation layer is composed of a phenanthroline compound that can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
123
187
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
110
219
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
116
227
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0078]-[0110]). Yoo teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in display for electronic devices, such as tablets, and the electroluminescent can further comprise a color conversion layer (paragraphs [0005]-[0007]).
Yoo does not teach where the hole injection layer and hole transporting layer comprises the applicant’s claimed compounds.
Nishimura teaches a mixed hole injection layer for use in electroluminescent devices (pages 136 and 137 of the machine translation). Nishimura hole injection layer is composed of hole transporting material, such as
PNG
media_image4.png
88
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image5.png
125
159
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, doped with
PNG
media_image6.png
171
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
at 6% (pages 136 and 137 of the machine translation). Nishimura teaches that using this mixture in the hole injection layer leads to a device with a low drive voltage, high lifetime, and high efficiency (pages 136 and 137 of the machine translation).
Sado teaches a mixed hole injection layer for use in electroluminescent devices (paragraphs [0413]-[0426]). Sado hole injection layer is composed of hole transporting material,
PNG
media_image4.png
88
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
doped with
PNG
media_image6.png
171
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
at 3% (paragraph [0415]). Sado teaches that using the composite material in the hole injection layer facilitates hole injection regardless of the material of the anode (paragraph [0270]).
Huang teaches hole transporting material for use in electroluminescent devices (pages 4 and 5 of the machine translation). Huang teaches that the hole transporting material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image7.png
121
229
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0056] of the CN document and pages 4 and 5 of the machine translation). Huang teaches that the hole transporting layer is 40 nm and the device has improved efficiency and lower drive voltage when
PNG
media_image7.png
121
229
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is used instead of NPD (pages 4 and 5 of the machine translation).
Ito teaches host materials for blue florescent dopants for used in electroluminescent devices (paragraphs [0015]-[0017] and [0102]). Ito teaches host materials can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image8.png
112
290
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
147
301
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image10.png
132
303
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image11.png
106
288
media_image11.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0055]). Ito teaches that when the host materials are used for blue fluorescent dopants the device has great efficiency with a long life (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoo, so the hole injection layer is composed of
PNG
media_image4.png
88
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
doped with
PNG
media_image6.png
171
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
at 3% or 6% as taught by Nishimura and Sado. The motivation would have been to make a device that facilitates hole injection regardless of the anode material and have a low drive voltage and high efficiency and lifetime.
PNG
media_image4.png
88
131
media_image4.png
Greyscale
doped with
PNG
media_image6.png
171
171
media_image6.png
Greyscale
is the same mixture the applicant’s used in the examples in the specification.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoo, so the hole transporting layer is 40nm and is composed of
PNG
media_image7.png
121
229
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as taught by Huang. The motivation would have been to improve the efficiency and lower the drive voltage of the device.
PNG
media_image7.png
121
229
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is the same mixture the applicant’s used in the examples in the specification.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoo, so the host material for the blue dopant is
PNG
media_image8.png
112
290
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
147
301
media_image9.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image10.png
132
303
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image11.png
106
288
media_image11.png
Greyscale
as taught by Ito. The motivation would have been to improve the lifetime of the device.
The combination would lead to a device that would have materials used by the applicant in the examples in the instant application and the resulting device would meet the applicant’s claimed energy limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura et al. (US 2021/0242419) teaches an electroluminescent device comprising a charge generating layer and multiple light emitting units.
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