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 .
Status of the claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 06/23/2026.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are pending, claims 18-20 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and14-17 are considered below. Claim 1 has been amended by deleting a limitation and introducing a limitation, the scope of which was not previously considered. New rejections addressing the newly introduced limitation are below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (and therefore claims 4-6, 8-9, and 14-17, which depend from claim 1) recites the limitation “wherein the absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport region is about 5.15 eV or less.” This limitation introduces new matter into the claims.
The claims recite that the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer (claim 1) and an electron blocking layer (claim 9).
The specification (and previously filed claim 7) recites the following:
[0013]: The absolute value of the work function of the first inorganic material may be about 5.15 eV or more.
[0016] and original claim 7: The absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer may be about 5.15 eV or less.
[0019]: The absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer may be greater than or equal to an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the emission layer, and less than or equal to the absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer.
Neither the specification nor the claims provide support for the scope of the hole transport region, which includes at least the injection layer and the transport layer (and in claim 9 the electron blocking layer), having an absolute value of the HOMO level of 5.15 eV or less. This is particularly noted, since the claim requires the first inorganic material, which is stated to have a HOMO of 5.15 eV or more. The specification does provide support for the individual layers, as described above.
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 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 14-17 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.
Claim 1 (and therefore claims 4-6, 8-9, and 14-17, which depend from claim 1) recites the limitation “wherein the absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport region is about 5.15 eV or less.”
The limitation is unclear because the hole transport region includes a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer (claim 1) and an electron blocking layer (claim 9). The use of the term “the absolute value,” appears to imply that there is a single value for the hole transport region. However, since there are at least two layers that make up the region, it is unclear if both layers need to have values less that 5.15 eV or merely one of the materials in the layers must have a value less that 5.15 eV. Additionally, this limitation appears to lack antecedent basis, as the layers may not inherently have the same value. This is contrasted with the previous recitation of a HOMO energy level wherein the claim recites “an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer.”
For purposes of applying art, the limitation will be interpreted such that if any part or material of the hole transport region has a value of about 5.15 eV or less, it meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lee (2008/0143252 A1) in view of Kwon (US 20080111484) and as evidenced by Ko US 2018/0019408 A1.
In reference to claim 1, Lee discloses:
an OLED (200, abstract, Figure 1) (corresponds to A light-emitting device)
comprising:
- a second electrode (190), which when reflective can be formed of Aluminum and alloys thereof ([27]) (corresponds to a first electrode and the first electrode comprises aluminum)
-a first electrode (110, [16], Figure 1) (corresponds to a second electrode facing the first electrode)
-Layers 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 (corresponds to an interlayer between the first electrode and the second electrode)
Comprising:
-emission layer (150, [20], Figure 1) (corresponds to an emission layer)
-hole injection layer (180), hole transport layer (170), and electron blocking layer (160) ([22-23], Figure 1) between the electrode (190) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer and to wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and a hole transport layer, sequentially arranged between the first electrode and the emission layer)
-hole blocking layer (140), electron transport layer (130), and electron injection layer (120) ([18-19], Figure 1) between the electrode (110) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to an electron transport region between the emission layer and the second electrode)
-the hole injection layer (180) is suitably WO3 ([24], Figure 1) (corresponds to wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer and to the hole injection layer consists of a first inorganic material including WOx (wherein x=3))
Lee does not specifically disclose that the absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material is greater than or equal to an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer or that the absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport region is about 5.15 eV or less.
However, Lee does disclose that the hole transport layer (170) may be formed suitably of MTDATA [22], which has an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport region is about 5.1 eV, as evidenced by Ko US 2018/0019408 A1 [416].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lee to form the device with MTDATA as the hole transport layer, as Lee discloses that this material suitably serves to facilitate hole transport to the emission layer.
Lee discloses that the hole transport layer is suitably MTDATA ([22]) and the hole injection layer (180) is suitably WO3 ([24]). The absolute value of a work function of the first inorganic material (WO3) is greater than or equal to an absolute value of a HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer (MTDATA, 5.1 eV) (as evidenced by the absolute value WO3 inorganic work function (5.5 eV) in the device of example 1 of the instant specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lee to use MTDATA as the hole transport layer in conjunction with the WO3 as the hole injection layer, as Lee discloses those materials to be suitable for use in the device of the invention.
Additionally, the hole transport region excludes a p-dopant (the materials used are disclosed to be only WO3 and MTDATA).
Modified Lee does not specifically disclose that the first electrode comprises AlNiLa, AlNiGeLa, AlcoGeLa or any combination thereof.
However, modified Lee discloses that when the anode is reflective, aluminum or alloys thereof are suitable [27].
Kwon discloses that when the anode of an OLED is reflective, Aluminum and AlNiLa are both suitable [14, 33]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lee to have the anode formed of AlNiLa, as Lee discloses that aluminum and alloys thereof are suitable and Kwon discloses the AlNiLa is equally suitable to aluminum for use as the reflective anode in an OLED. The selection of a known material for its intended purpose is within the ambit of an ordinary artisan.
In reference to claim 4, the absolute value WO3 inorganic work function is 5.5 eV, as evidenced by the device of example 1 of the instant specification.
In reference to claim 5, Lee discloses hole injection layer is WO3 (as described above) (corresponds to the first inorganic material comprises WO3).
In reference to claim 6, it is the examiners position that the limitation “wherein the first electrode and the hole injection layer are collectively dry-etched” is a product-by-process limitation. There is no specific structure implied by the product limitations other than they are present, absent evidence to the contrary. The specification does not provide for any particular structure required by the limitation. The claim does not require any particular amount of material removal or thickness of the first electrode or a patten to be present. Therefore, Lee teaches this limitation, as the first electrode and hole injection layers are present, absent evidence to the contrary.
In reference to claim 8, Lee discloses that the hole transport material is 4,4',4''-tris(N-3-methylphenyl-N-phenyl-amino)-triphenylamine (MTDATA)
PNG
media_image1.png
380
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Corresponds to wherein the hole transport region comprises a compound represented by Formula 201, xa1-3=0, R201, R202, and R203 are each substituted C6 carbocycles with one R10a,and each R10a is -N(Q11)(Q12), where Q11 is a C6 carbocycle and Q12 is a C6 carbocycle substituted with a C1 alkyl).
In reference to claim 9, Lee discloses an electron blocking layer (160) ([22-23], Figure 1) between the hole transport layer (170) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to the hole transport region further comprises an electron blocking layer between the hole transport layer and the emission layer)
In reference to claim 11, Lee discloses hole blocking layer (140), electron transport layer (130), and electron injection layer (120) ([18-19], Figure 1) between the electrode (110) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer).
In reference to claim 12, Lee discloses hole blocking layer (140), electron transport layer (130), and electron injection layer (120) ([18-19], Figure 1) between the electrode (110) and the emission layer (150) (corresponds to the electron transport region comprises a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, and an electron injection layer, sequentially arranged between the emission layer and the second electrode).
In reference to claim 14, Lee does not specifically disclose a single embodiment wherein the emission layer (150) is further a host and a dopant, and the dopant comprises a phosphorescent dopant, a fluorescent dopant, or any combination thereof, the emission layer comprises one or more quantum dots, or the emission layer comprises a delayed fluorescence material, and the delayed fluorescence material functions as a host or a dopant in the emission layer.
However, Lee does disclose that the emission layer (150) can be a phosphorescent of fluorescent layer [19]. When the layer is phosphorescent, the layer contains a host and dopant, wherein the dopant is a phosphorescent dopant [20]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the emission layer with the phosphorescent dopant along with the host material, as this is taught to be a suitable composition for the emission layer of Lee.
In reference to claim 15, Lee discloses that the first electrode (190) is an anode and the second electrode (110) is a cathode ([17 and 27]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lee (2008/0143252 A1) in view of Kwon (US 20080111484) as evidenced by Ko US 2018/0019408 A1 and further in view of Miyaguchi (US 5953585) and Kumar (Polymers, 2016).
In reference to claim 6, it is the examiners position that the limitation “wherein the first electrode and the hole injection layer are collectively dry-etched” is a product-by-process limitation and Lee teaches this limitation, as described above.
Alternatively, modified Lee does not specifically disclose the method step of dry etching the first electrode and the hole injection layer. Lee discloses that the device of the invention is a display device [3]). Miyaguchi discloses that in order to provide a display device with the OLED elements, one would pattern the elements, including by dry etching the anode, organic substances and the cathode, in order to make an arrangement with one or more organic electroluminescent elements (abstract). Additionally, dry etching is a well-known method for removing material and has advantages over other etching methods such as wet etching, as described by Kumar (2.2.2 Dry Etching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Lee by patterning the organic electroluminescent element by the well-known method of dry etching (including the first electrode and the hole injection layer) in order to include one or more organic electroluminescent elements into a display device, as is desired by Lee, as described above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lee (2008/0143252 A1) in view of Kwon (US 20080111484) as evidenced by Ko US 2018/0019408 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2016/0190450) and Khan (US 2012/0197179).
In reference to claim 16, modified Lee discloses the device of claim 1, as described above. Lee does not specifically disclose the claimed first and second capping layers.
Hwang discloses capping layers disposed outside of the electrodes in an OLED [141, 147, 148, 259]. The capping layers improve external luminous efficiency [260].
Khan discloses that suitable capping materials that enhance the emission of light from an OLED include NPB [63]. NPB is disclosed in the instant specification to meet the required refractive index [192 and 189].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include capping layers, including NPB, on the outside of each electrode, thereby meeting the claimed capping layers. One would have been motivated to do so, as the layers are taught to improve external luminous efficiency, as described above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lee (2008/0143252 A1) in view of Kwon (US 20080111484) as evidenced by Ko US 2018/0019408 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2016/0005990 A1).
In reference to claim 17, modified Lee discloses the device of claim 1, as described above. Lee does not specifically disclose that the interlayer comprises two or more light emitting units and at least one charge generation layer between the units, as claimed.
Lee ‘990 discloses tandem OLED structures comprising a charge generation layer (500) between the two units (300 and 400). The units are stacked sequentially between the electrodes (100 and 200) (Figure 1, [26-28]). OLEDs having this tandem structure offer high stability and operability for combining units to produce white light with high color purity [6, 17].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of Lee in to a tandem structure having the configuration of Lee ‘990 in order to offer high stability and operability for combining units to produce white light with high color purity, as described above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 the rejection that the rejection does not teach the limitation “wherein the absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport region is about 5.15 eV or less.”
The newly added limitation, which includes a scope not previously considered, is met by a reinterpretation of the reference, as described above. Mainly that the rejection relies on the teaching of MTDATA as a material of the hole transport region having an absolute value of the HOMO energy level of the hole transport region is about 5.1 eV, as described above.
Applicant further argues that Embodiments 1 and 2 show unexpected results.
It is the Examiner’s position that for at least the reason that the claims are not commensurate in scope with Embodiments 1 and 2, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
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 MARLA D MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5PM.
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, TC 1700 Director Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights