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 June 11, 2026, which amends claims 4, 6, 8, 10, 18, and 20, cancels claims 5, 9, and 19, and adds claims 21-23. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-18, and 20-23 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of the claims, filed June 11, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 5, 9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (WO 2020/138867) as set forth in the Office action mailed March 11, 2026. The applicant cancels claims 5, 9, and 19 are canceled; therefore, the claims are no longer pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the Yoon does not teach the limitation regarding the overlapping of the fluorescence spectrum of the host and the dopant, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The Office points out that this limitation is inherent to the mixture taught by Yoon. This limitation does not need to be specifically taught as long as the mixture contains this property. The compounds of Yoon are the same as the compounds specifically claimed by the applicant; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect compounds of Yoon would meet the applicant’s claimed limitation. The Office points out the applicant only specifically teaches two host materials and three dopant materials and the teachings from the applicant’s specification indicates that any mixture of these hosts and dopants would lead to the applicant’s claimed limitation. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the mixture of Yoon does not meet the applicant’s claimed limitation. The applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the energy matching conditions that need to be satisfied between the host material BH and the doped material BD, and they are also key technical means by which the material combination achieves efficient Forster energy transfer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (WO 2020/138867) (hereafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-17, Yoon teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a blue light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraph [251]-[264]). Yoon teaches that the blue light emitting layer is composed of
PNG
media_image1.png
104
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
147
75
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where that amount of
PNG
media_image1.png
104
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is 2% (paragraphs [78], [80], [110], [135], [251], and [264]).
PNG
media_image1.png
104
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is the same as taught and claimed by the applicant and
PNG
media_image2.png
147
75
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is the same as taught and claimed by the applicant. Both
PNG
media_image1.png
104
158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
147
75
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are preferred compounds of the applicant and would meet the applicant’s claimed emission and absorption spectrum limitations. Yoon teaches the electroluminescent device can be used in a light apparatus comprising several pixels (plurality of electroluminescent devices) and the different pixels emits different color and one of the pixels can be the blue emitting device (paragraphs [5], [351], and [352], Fig. 5).
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) 18 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2020/138867) (hereafter “Yoon”) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-17 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2012/0235561) (hereafter “Ikeda”).
Regarding claims 18 and 20-23, Yoon teaches that that the host material is an anthracene compound from the following formula,
PNG
media_image3.png
151
142
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,where R1 and R2 can be a C6-C30 aryl group, and L1 and L2 can be C6-C30 arylene group and Yoon teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
147
75
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as compound that meet the formula (paragraphs [73]-[80]).
Yoon does not specifically teach a host material that meets applicant’s claimed compound,
PNG
media_image4.png
130
188
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Ikeda teaches blue emitting electroluminescent devices, where the host material is an anthracene material (paragraphs [0041] and [0124]-[0138]). Ikeda specifically teaches that the host material can be
PNG
media_image2.png
147
75
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image4.png
130
188
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0041] and [0137], Table 1). Ikeda teaches that when either of these compounds are used as the host material the device displays similar results (paragraph [0137], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the anthracene host material of Yoon,
PNG
media_image2.png
147
75
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, with
PNG
media_image4.png
130
188
media_image4.png
Greyscale
as taught by Ikeda. Ikeda teaches that the two host materials can be substituted to each other and leads to devices with similar results; therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the host materials for each other in the device of Yoon and one would expect the device to display similar results.
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