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 .
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 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8-11 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 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8-11, the phrase "preferably", “more preferably”, and/or “most preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2010/0187984) (hereafter “Lin”) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0058124) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) and Min et al. (US 2015/0001488) (hereafter “Min”).
Regarding claims 1-18, Lin teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0133]-[0137]). Lin teaches that the emission layer comprises a dopant and a host material (paragraph [0134]). Lin teaches that the host material is
PNG
media_image1.png
188
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
128
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the emission material is a phosphorescent dopant and does not limit the color (paragraphs [0048] and [0133]-[0137], Table 2). Lin teaches that the hole blocking material is composed of the same material as the host material,
PNG
media_image1.png
188
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
128
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0133]-[0137], Table 2). These compounds are the same as applicant’s formula HB-3-1 and HB-3-3.
Lin does not teach where the light emitting layer comprises a second host material and the light emitting material is a blue TADF material.
Hatakeyama teaches blue TADF materials that can be used as the emitting dopant in electroluminescent devices (paragraph [0016]). Hatakeyama teaches that when the blue TADF materials are used instead of blue phosphorescent dopants the resulting electroluminescent device has improved efficiency and a narrower half width (paragraphs [0358]-[0379], Table 2). Hatakeyama teaches that the dopants can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image3.png
117
177
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
139
215
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
190
216
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image6.png
158
234
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0358] and [0379], Table 2). These compounds are the same as applicant’s compounds, BD1, BD2, BD3, and BD8.
Min teaches the use of two different host materials for use in electroluminescent devices (paragraph [0006]). Min that one host should be electron transporting and the other should be hole transporting (paragraph [0035]). The host material of Lin has electron transporting characteristics. Min teaches that use of
PNG
media_image7.png
172
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as the hole transporting host (paragraph [0124] and [0171], Table 26). Min teaches that when
PNG
media_image7.png
172
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is added as the second host material the resulting device has improved lifetime and efficiency (paragraph [0171], Table 26).
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 Lin so the blue emitting dopant was a TADF compounds, such as
PNG
media_image3.png
117
177
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
139
215
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
190
216
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image6.png
158
234
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, taught by Hatakeyama. The motivation would have been to produce a blue emitting device that has a narrow half width and an improved efficiency.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin to add a hole transporting host to the light emitting material as taught by Min, such as
PNG
media_image7.png
172
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. The motivation would have been to improve the lifetime and efficiency of the device.
PNG
media_image7.png
172
208
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is the same as applicant’s formula P-1. The device of Lin in view of Hatakeyama and Min would lead to device that comprises compounds taught by the applicant as preferred compounds and would the device of the combination would meet the applicant’s claimed energy limitations.
Regarding claim 21, Lin teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in a display assembly (paragraphs [0005], [0006], and [0039]).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2010/0187984) (hereafter “Lin”) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US 2019/0058124) (hereafter “Hatakeyama”) and Min et al. (US 2015/0001488) (hereafter “Min”) as applied to claims 1-18 and 21 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (US 2017/0325314) (hereafter “Uchida”).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Lin teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used to made a blue emitting device, a red emitting device, or a green emitting device (paragraphs [0048] and [0133]-[0137]). Lin teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in full color display, comprise different color pixels (paragraph [0006]).
Lin in view of Hatakeyama and Min does not teach the structure of the device comprising the full color display/pixels.
Uchida teaches the structure of full color display (paragraph [0091], Table 1). Uchida teaches that the different pixels (applicant’s units) can be red, blue, and green and the materials for each of the units, except the dopant material, can be the same (paragraph [0091], Table 1). Uchida teaches that the blue unit should emit fluorescent blue light and the red and green units can emit light through phosphorescent (paragraph [0091], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try to use the device of Lin in view of Hatakeyama and Min in a display device taught by Uchida, which comprises the applicant’s claimed red, blue, and green units. Lin teaches that the electroluminescent device can emit blue, red, or green light and can be used in a full color display but does not teach the structure of the display; therefore, it would have been obvious to try make the full color display structure taught by Uchida using the device of Lin in view of Hatakeyama and Min. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the device of Lin in view of Hatakeyama and Min can be used to make full color displays as Uchida does not limit materials used to make each of the different units.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tada et al. (US 2018/0351109) teaches a mixture of host materials for use in electroluminescent devices, where one of cohosts meets the applicant’s claimed second host materials.
Ma et al. (US 2016/0093816) teaches applicant’s claimed compounds BH 3-1 and P-4 as host materials that can be used in electroluminescent devices.
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