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 § 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No et al. (US 2020/0119285) in view of Xia et al. (US 2010/0270916) (hereafter “Xia”) and Yokoyama et al. (US 2013/0112950) (hereafter “Yokoyama”).
Regarding claims 1-15, No teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0213]-[0223]) (claim 1). No teaches that the light emitting layer comprises two host materials and a phosphorescent dopant (claims 1 and 15). NO teaches that one of the host materials can be
PNG
media_image1.png
191
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
192
319
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image3.png
201
219
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraphs [0136] and [0213]-[0233]) (claims 1-10). These compounds are the same as claimed by the applicant. No teaches that the second host material can be
PNG
media_image4.png
177
201
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
214
207
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image6.png
237
214
media_image6.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0137] and [0213]-[0233]) (claims 11-14). These compounds are the same as claimed by the applicant except for the presence of deuterium atoms.
No does not specifically teach where either the first host or second host is deuterated.
Xia teaches materials for use in electroluminescent devices (abstract). Xia teaches that deuterium substitution can improve efficiency and stability of a compound because the atomic mass of deuterium is twice the value of hydrogen, which results in lower zero-point energy and lower vibration energy level (paragraph [0066]).
Yokoyama teaches materials for use in electroluminescent devices (abstract). Yokoyama teaches that the substituting a compound with deuterium can lead to improvement in heat resistance and thin-film stability (paragraph [0114]).
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 host materials of No so the compounds were substituted with deuterium atoms, as taught by Xia and Yokoyama. The motivation would have been to improve the efficiency and stability of the compounds.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parham et al. (US 2017/0062736) meets compounds that meet applicant’s chemical formula I.
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