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 Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both claims 1 and 20 comprise more than 1 sentence. The second to last line of the claims comprises 1 period along with the last line of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-19 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 11-19, the Office points outs that the applicant does not provide any information on how the different values are obtained. The Office points out that the depending on the method used to measure HOMO and LUMO and triplet energy the obtained value can be different and under one method that compounds could meet the applicant’s claimed energy limitations, but under a method that values would not. It has been shown in the prior art that the method used can have a significant effect on the HOMO and LUMO value of a compound.
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, 3-7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiomi et al. (WO 2020/235558), where Shiomi et al. (US 2022/0238815) (hereafter “Shiomi”) is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9, 14, 11, 16, and 18-20, Shiomi teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer (25 nm thick), a hole blocking layer (10 nm thick), an electron transporting layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0638]-[0647]) (claims 1, 16, and 20). Shiomi teaches that the light emitting layer is composed of a host material, a TADF material, and a fluorescent dopant (paragraph [0642]) (claims 1 and 20). Shiomi teaches that the host material has the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
160
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
146
251
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which inherently meets the applicant’s HOMO and LUMO limitations (paragraphs [0634], [0642], and [0662]) (claims 3-5 and 11). Shiomi teaches that the host material can also be the following materials,
PNG
media_image3.png
181
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
161
243
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image5.png
158
178
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(paragraph [0143]) (claims 6 and 11, compounds A-10, A-11, and A-12). Shiomi teaches that the hole blocking layer is composed of
PNG
media_image6.png
219
253
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, which is similar to applicant’s compound H-5, and the hole blocking material of Shiomi would inherently have an electron migration rate of not less than 5 x 10-6 cm2/Vs (paragraphs [0636] and [0643]) (claims 7, 9, and 14). The structure of the hole blocking layer and the electron transporting layer would inherently meet the applicant’s claims electron migration rate limitation between the two layers (claims [0643] and [0644]) (claim 18). The device of Shiomi comprising the hole blocking layer, electron transporting layer (applicant’s first electron transfer layer), and electron injection layer (applicant’s second transfer layer) meet the applicant’s claimed triplet energy relationship (paragraphs [0643]-[0645]) (claim 19).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiomi et al. (WO 2020/235558), where Shiomi et al. (US 2022/0238815) (hereafter “Shiomi”) is used as the English equivalent, as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Suh et al. (US 2019/0296243) (hereafter “Suh”).
Regarding claims 2, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17, Shiomi does not limit the material of the hole blocking layer or the electron transporting layer (paragraph [0349] and [0543]).
Shiomi does not specifically teach where the hole blocking layer is composed of one of the applicant’s claimed invention or where electron transporting layer meets applicant’s formula 2.
Suh teaches an electroluminescent device comprising a hole blocking layer and an electron transporting layer (paragraph [0156]-[0167]). Suh teaches that the electron transporting layer can be composed of
PNG
media_image7.png
190
239
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(same as applicant’s compound H-9) and when this compound is used instead of ET-A (same as the electron transporting material of Shiomi that device has improved efficiency (paragraphs [0151]-[0160]) (claim 2). Suh also teaches that the hole blocking layer can be composed of spirobifluorene compounds, such as
PNG
media_image8.png
222
240
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
168
207
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image10.png
203
213
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(same as applicant’s compounds H-21, H-20, and H-19) (paragraphs [0091] and [0162]-[0167]) (claims 8 and 10). Suh teaches that using these compounds as hole blocking materials leads to increases in device efficiency (paragraph [0166]).
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 Shiomi, so the hole blocking layer is compounds of
PNG
media_image8.png
222
240
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image9.png
168
207
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image10.png
203
213
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, and the electron transporting layer is composed of
PNG
media_image7.png
190
239
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as taught by Suh. The motivation would have been to improve efficiency of the device. This would lead to a device where the hole blocking layer and the light emitting layer electronic properties would inherently meet the applicant’s claimed invention (claims 12, 13, 15 and 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shiomi et al. (US 2024/0188428) teaches host materials that meet the applicant’s claimed formula.
Cha et al. (US 2021/0050528) teaches triazine compounds for use in electroluminescent device.
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