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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 29 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 regarding amendment to the limitation addressing the functional material are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 regarding the limitation, “absolute value of a difference of highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy values of any two host materials is less than or equal to 0.1 eV” is not persuasive. Asari teaches a light emitting device which limits crystallization of a first host material by the act of including a second host material (Asari – col. 5: lines 10-31). Asari further teaches that the selection of a second host material which differs by not more than 0.1 eV in ionization potential (which is equated to a difference in HOMO energy in col. 5: lines 27-31 of Asari), electron affinity, or triplet energy from the first host material is necessary and beneficial for preventing the degradation of device characteristics upon the inclusion of a second host material, such as to prevent changes in the amount of electrical charge carriers and to prevent a reduction in luminance (Asari – col. 2: lines 24-34, col. 5: lines 10-31). Asari teaches that the inclusion of a second host material limits crystallization of the bulk matrix host material and does not teach that the inclusion of a second host material limits the crystallization of functional dopant materials of the light emitting device. Asari teaches that the inclusion of a second host material limits the crystallization of the first host material; Asari does not teach that setting the difference in ionization potential between the host materials to not more than 0.1 eV limits the crystallization of the first host material.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. Claims 2-3, 5, and 14-15 rejected due to dependency on claim 1. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the essential elements of the materials of the host materials, which have an absolute value difference of highest occupied molecular orbital energy values less than 0.1 eV, and the material of the functional material which falls into the class of substituted diphenylamine compounds, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The specification lists two example compositions of the functional material in paragraphs 106 and 107. However, the two listed example materials of paragraphs 106 and 107 are not within the class of materials required by the claim; the class of materials required by claim 1 being alkoxy-substituted diphenylamine compounds. The materials of the host materials which have an absolute value difference of highest occupied molecular orbital energy values less than 0.1 eV, are also omitted from the claims and specification. The omission of the essential subject matter prevents a person of ordinary skill in the art from understanding what would be workable examples for the functional material or the host materials. As the claims and specification lack essential subject matter, it would be burdensome to a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is meant by the claims and the disclosure without undo experimentation. The material which makes up the functional material is considered essential by the applicant for improving a hole injection function of the light emitting device (para. 75, 102). The host materials and the materials which make up the at least two host materials is considered essential by the applicant for allowing mixing and co-deposition of the host materials, allowing hole transport in the device, and delaying aging of the light emitting device (para. 78).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz et al. (US 6392250 B1; hereinafter referred to as “Aziz”) in view of Heuer et al. (US PGPub 20020090532 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Heuer”) and Asari et al. (US 8795852 B2; hereinafter referred to as “Asari”).
Re claim 1: Aziz teaches a light emitting device, comprising: an anode (column 5: line 14, fig. 2: element 34); an emission layer located on a side of the anode (column 5: lines 16-18, column 5: lines 36-37, fig. 2: element 38); and a hole auxiliary layer located between the anode and the emission layer (column 5: line 14-15, column 6: lines 14-15, fig. 2: element 36, fig. 3: element 136); wherein at least one of the emission layer and the hole auxiliary layer comprises a functional material (column 10: lines 63-64); wherein the functional material comprises a compound with a planar configuration (column 11: lines 1-16). Aziz teaches a family of quinacridone dopant compounds having a planar main structure and being composed of phenyl amine groups with certain R sites being hydrogen, alkyl, alkoxy, or aryl groups (column 11: lines 1-16). Aziz is silent as to the specific compound from this family to be used as a dopant, and thus is silent as to the functional material comprising alkoxy-substituted diphenylamine compounds. Aziz teaches wherein a material of the emission layer comprises the functional material (Aziz - column 10: lines 63-64, column 10: line 64-column 11: line 16), a guest material (Aziz - column 10: lines 63-64, column 10: line 64-column 11: line 63| Aziz teaches that the emission layer contains at least one dopant material, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this teaching allows for the functional material as one dopant and a guest material as another dopant) and at least one host materials (Aziz - abstract: sentence 1, column 5: lines 36-37). Aziz fails to disclose wherein a material of the emission layer comprises at least two host materials, absolute value of a difference of highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy values of any two host materials is less than or equal to 0.1 eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, Heuer teaches a light emitting device (para. 18) comprising an emission layer including a functional dopant material comprising a compound with a planar configuration, and the functional material comprises alkoxy-substituted diphenylamine compounds (para. 73, 59-60| Heuer teaches a functional dopant material in an electroluminescent emission layer being methoxy substituted quinacridone, wherein quinacridone is a coupled diphenylamine compound with a planar main structure; structure of the dopant material given by C11-C15 and C28 structures which are structurally represented below para. 59), and the functional material is configured to be crystallizable at a preset temperature and improve hole injection property (in regards to the functional material, the claimed and prior art structures are substantially identical, and therefore, as per MPEP 2112.01, the claimed properties of crystallizing at a specific temperature and improving hole injection are assumed to be present; the following is a quotation of an appropriate section of MPEP 2112.01(I): “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”). Heuer further teaches a benefit of using substituted quinacridone as a functional dopant material in the electroluminescent emission layer of a light emitting device is improved efficiency, stability, and process compatibility (para. 13-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Aziz and Heuer, to enable using the functional dopant material of Heuer as the compound in the emission layer of the light emitting device of Aziz for the benefit of simplifying manufacturing by using a known emission layer dopant material for improved efficiency, stability, and process compatibility (para. 13-16).
The combination of Aziz and Heuer fails to teach wherein a material of the emission layer comprises at least two host materials, absolute value of a difference of highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy values of any two host materials is less than or equal to 0.1 eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, Asari teaches an emission layer (column 4: line 51, fig. 1: element 5) wherein the material of the emission layer comprises at least two host materials (abstract: sentence 3), absolute value of a difference of highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy values of any two host materials is less than or equal to 0.1 eV (abstract: sentence 3, column 5: lines 27-31). Asari further teaches that a benefit of having a difference of not more than 0.1 eV between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy levels of the combined host materials in the emission layer is to prevent the degradation of device characteristics, such as to prevent causing large changes in the injected amount of electrical charge carriers (column 2: lines 24-34, column 5: lines 27-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Asari with the teachings of the combination of Aziz and Heuer to enable using host materials with a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level difference of not more than 0.1 eV as taught by Asari in the light emitting device of the combination of Aziz and Heuer, for the benefit of preventing a degradation of device characteristics, such as to prevent causing large changes in the injected amount of charge carriers.
Re claim 2: The combination of Aziz, Heuer, and Asari teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, and claim 2 does not provide additional structure. With regard to claim 2, the claimed and prior art structures are substantially identical, and therefore, as per MPEP 2112.01, the following claimed property of the temperature of crystallization is presumed to be inherent: wherein the preset temperature is greater than or equal to 105⁰C.
Re claim 3: The combination of Aziz, Heuer, and Asari teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, and claim 3 does not provide additional structure. With regard to claim 3, the claimed and prior art structures are substantially identical, and therefore, as per MPEP 2112.01, the following claimed property is presumed to be inherent: wherein a glass transition temperature of the function material is less than 105⁰C.
Re claim 5: The combination of Aziz, Heuer, and Asari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein a proportion of the functional material in the material of the emission layer is in a range of 0.1% to 0.2% (Aziz - column 12: lines 16-17| Aziz specifically discloses a proportion of the functional material in the material of emission layer is in the range of 0.1% to 2%, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
Re claim 14: The combination of Aziz, Heuer, and Asari teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the functional material further comprises butadiene compounds (Aziz - column 11: lines 40-41; column 10: lines 63-64| Aziz teaches that the emission layer contains at least one dopant material, and broadest reasonable interpretation of this teaching allows for the functional material to include the benefits of both a disclosed dye dopant of the quinacridone family as one dopant and a disclosed fluorescent type dopant of 1,4-diphenylbutadiene as another dopant).
Re claim 15: The combination of Aziz, Heuer, and Asari teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting device further comprises a cathode (Aziz - column 5: line 20, fig. 2: element 42), and the cathode is located on a side of the emission layer facing away from the hole auxiliary layer (Aziz - column 5: lines 14-21, fig. 2: element 42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN GOODLING whose telephone number is (571)272-2552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights