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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 7-1 of the reply filed 05/27/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-13 and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0091293 A1, hereafter Suzuki) in view of Arasawa et al. (US 2011/0254037 A1, hereafter Arasawa), Osaka et al. (US 2017/0365782 A1, hereafter Osaka), Ossila et al. (Materials information of F4-TCNQ captured by the Wayback Machine on 07/07/2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20170707152859/https://www.ossila.com/products/f4tcnq, hereafter Ossila), Xia et al. (US 2019/0103558 A1, hereafter Xia) and Lee et al. (US 2011/0084259 A1, hereafter Lee), as evidenced by Seo et al. (US 2012/0286252 A1, hereafter Seo ‘252), and the rejections of claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Xia, and Lee as applied to claims 1-13 and 16-21 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo ‘860), as evidenced by Sung et al. (US 2013/0153903 A1, hereafter Sung) and the rejections of claims 1-13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arasawa in view of Xia and Lee, as evidenced by Seo, and the rejections of claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arasawa in view of Xia and Lee as applied to claims 1-13 and 16-21 above, further in view of Seo ‘860, as evidenced by Osaka set forth in the Office Action of 02/27/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that spin density cannot be predicted from the cited references (page 9).
Upon further consideration, the Examiner updated the rejections to replace Xia with Pfeiffer and Blochwitz.
Suzuki, Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, and Lee teaches a light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer (LiF).
Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, and Lee discloses the claimed invention except for that the molar mixing ratio of the hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ). It should be noted that molar mixing ratio is a result effective variable.
Pfeiffer discloses a semiconducting thin film comprising a hole transport material (VOPc) and an electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) (Abstract, Fig. 1)
Pfeiffer teaches that the doping concentration of the electron accepting material in the hole transporting material increases hole density and hole mobility to the doping concentration of 2 mol% (insets in Fig. 1a and Fig. 2). Pfeiffer teaches that high doping concentration reduces the mobility of the holes, because dopants act as scattering center reducing the mobility of carriers (page 3204, col. 1, paragraph 4).
Blochwitz discloses a light emitting device comprising a hole injection layer containing a hole transport material (VOPc) and an electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) (Abstract, Fig. 1).
Blochwitz teaches the luminescence efficiency increases with doping ratio, but the increase is weakened for larger dopant concentration (page 730, col. 2, last paragraph). Blochwitz teaches the current density peaks at a molar mixing ratio of 1.5 mol% (i.e. 1:65 of electron accepting material to hole transport material) and decrease at higher molar mixing ratio (third row in Table I).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create molar mixing ratio of the hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) to be around 1.5 to 2 mol%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the hole density, hole mobility, and luminescence efficiency, and current density of the light emitting device.
The modification provides Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer (LiF).
The Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the claimed properties: a spin density of the hole injection layer measured by an ESR method is higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3 (claim 1).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz inherently possesses the claimed spin density property.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
With respect to the spin density property, the instant specification recites the spin density of the hole injection layer measured by an ESR method is higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3 (multiple locations including at least [0012], [0024], [0045]). The hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) of the hole injection layer of the device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz have identical structures as the specific embodiments of the hole transport material and the electron accepting material in the instant specification, respectively ([0047], [0046]). Furthermore, the structure of BPAFLP is similar as Applicant’s specific embodiment FLPAPA. The instant specification shows that the spin density of FLPAPA film doped by an acceptor at molar ratio of around 1-2 mol% is around 1E18 spins/cm3 (Fig. 22; and see the extrapolation of two solid triangular symbols in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, a spin density of the hole injection layer of the device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz measured by an ESR method should be higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3.
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applicant’s inventors have identified a critical range for spin density (page 10).
Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree.
The instant specification does not support the criticality of the spin density, because the claimed mixture of the hole transport material and the electron accepting material has written description and scope of enablement issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See details in the 112(a) rejection sections below.
For at least this reason, the arguments are not found persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The Fig. 22 filed on 01/20/2026 includes BBABnF:NDP-9, FLPAPA:NDP-9, and PCBBiF:NDP-9. However, it appears that there is no term like “NDP-9” in the specification. The specification indicates that the terms “NDP-9” in Fig. 22 need to be replaced with “ALD-MP001” ([0259]-[0260], [0265], Table 4).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-21 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.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6, the independent claims 1, 4, and 6 require a light emitting device, wherein the hole injection layer comprises a mixture of a hole transport material and an electron accepting material, wherein the hole transport material is an organic compound having a HOMO level of higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV; the electron accepting material is an organic compound; and a spin density of the mixture of the hole-transport material and the electron-accepting material measured by an ESR method is required to be higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 and lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3.
Per MPEP 2163 (II)(A)(3)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The instant disclosure does not adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus. The instant specification describes five specific examples of mixtures of hole transport materials and electron accepting materials (Table 1). However, all of these examples are limited to one kind of electron accepting material (ALD-MP001Q) and three kinds of monoarylamine hole transport materials (BBABnf, FLPAPA, and PCBBiF) with 1-2 kinds of mixing ratios for each mixture. Additionally, while the disclosure exemplifies hole transport materials and electron accepting materials ([0046], [0047]), these examples do not adequately represent the full scope of the claimed materials, which may be of many varied classes of compounds including those comprising other class of hole transport materials (e.g. polymer materials and organometallic materials). Even in the same class of compounds (i.e. small molecules), the claimed material includes unlimited variety of hole transport materials each having a moiety of carbazole, amine, dibenzofuran, dibenzothiophene, and/or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring, and electron accepting materials each having an electron withdrawing group such as a cyano group or a halogen group at various mixing ratios in-between 0% and 100%.
There is no general guidance on which organic compounds should be selected as the hole transport material and electron accepting material. For example, there are no general structural formulas related to the claimed hole transport material and electron accepting material. Additionally, the spin density varies as a function of the mixing ratio as shown in Fig. 22. There is no guidance on which mixing ratio should be selected for each combination of the hole transport material and the electron accepting material.
The limited number of examples described in the disclosure do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus of any mixture of a hole transport material and an electron accepting material in the hole injection layer of a light emitting device, as described above.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, and 7-21, the claims 2-3, 5, and 7-21 are rejected due to the dependency of the rejected claims 1, 4, and 6.
Claims 1-21 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6, the independent claims 1, 4, and 6 requires a light emitting device, wherein the hole injection layer comprises a mixture of a hole transport material and an electron accepting material, wherein the hole transport material is an organic compound having a HOMO level of higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV; the electron accepting material is an organic compound; and a spin density of the mixture of the hole-transport material and the electron-accepting material measured by an ESR method is required to be higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 and lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3.
The claimed light emitting device requires a specific range of spin density of a mixture of a hole transport material and an electron accepting material. However, the instant disclosure fails to contain proper written descriptions of the mixtures such that an ordinary skill in the art would not make and use the invention without undue experiment.
The claim is drawn towards an exceedingly broad genus of possible combination of a hole transport material and an electron accepting material used as a part of or used for making/preparing the claimed light emitting device which could conceivably meet the claimed limitation.
(Wands factor A – the breadth of the claims) Applicant claims a mixture of a hole transport material and an electron accepting material used as the hole injection layer material of light emitting device. Applicant does not provide any additional limitation on the detailed structures of the hole transport material and the electron accepting material and on the detailed mixing ratio of the materials. The possible number of mixture which meets the claim limitation is exceedingly large.
(Wands factor F – amount of direction provided by Applicant). The instant specification describes five specific examples of light emitting devices wherein the hole injection layer comprises a mixture of a hole transport material and an electron accepting material (Table 1). However, all of these examples are limited to one kind of electron accepting material (ALD-MP001Q) and three kinds of monoarylamine hole transport materials (BBABnf, FLPAPA, and PCBBiF) with 1-2 kinds of mixing ratios for each mixture. Additionally, while the disclosure exemplifies hole transport materials and electron accepting materials ([0046], [0047]), these examples do not adequately represent the full scope of the claimed materials, which may be of many varied classes of compounds including those comprising other class of hole transport materials (e.g. polymer materials and organometallic materials). Even in the same class of compounds (i.e. small molecules), the claimed material includes unlimited variety of hole transport materials each having a moiety of carbazole, amine, dibenzofuran, dibenzothiophene, and/or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ring, and electron accepting materials each having an electron withdrawing group such as a cyano group or a halogen group at various mixing ratio in-between 0% and 100%.
Additionally, the only exemplified electron accepting material (Table 1) is given with a trade name, ALD-MP001Q (produced by Analysis Atelier Corporation, material serial No. 1S20180314 from the instant specification [0241]). In spite of search efforts, no publicly available document was found to figure out the molecular structure of the material (Note: Applicant is suggested to provide the structural formula of the material). It appears impossible to reproduce the only working examples without the material information of the ALD-MP001Q.
There is no general guidance on which organic compounds should be selected as the hole transport material and electron accepting material. For example, there are no general structural formulas related to the claimed hole transport material and electron accepting material. Additionally, the spin density varies as a function of the mixing ratio as shown in Fig. 22. There is no guidance on which mixing ratio should be applied for each combination of the hole transport material and the electron accepting material.
There could be a massive number of possible mixtures of a hole transport material and an electron accepting material. The specification fails to teach the direction of selecting each material and the mixing ratio of the material to be used as the hole injection layer material of the claimed device.
Compared to the size of the scope of the claims, the direction to select the mixed materials is limited to a portion of examples described, failing to teach the direction for the entire scope of the claimed materials.
(Wands factor G – number of working examples) Applicant only provides five specific examples of mixtures of hole transport materials and electron accepting materials used as the hole injection layer of a light emitting device (Table 4). All of these examples are limited to one kind of electron accepting material (ALD-MP001Q) and three kinds of monoarylamine hole transport materials (BBABnf, FLPAPA, and PCBBiF) with 1-2 kinds of mixing ratios for each mixture.
However, the independent claims 1, 4, and 6 claim any hole transport material having HOMO range from -5.7 eV to -5.4 eV, and any electron accepting material. There are nearly unlimited number of compounds that read on the claimed limitation. The five examples only read on a minute portion of the exceedingly large scope of potential materials which are possibly useable for the potential hole injection layer material of the claims.
(Wands factor H – the quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention) As outlined above in Wands factors A-G, there are unlimited number of combinations of materials which are possibly useable for the potential hole injection layer of the claims. A person having ordinary skill in the art wound not be able to make the invention without an undue amount of experimentation from the sheer number of possible device structures and materials used for the device.
For these reasons, Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that would enable a person of ordinary skill to make and use the invention as claimed. Accordingly, the specification fails to sufficiently enable a person having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to practice the invention commensurate with the full scope of the claims.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, and 7-21, the claims 2-3, 5, and 7-21 are rejected due to the dependency of the rejected claims 1, 4, and 6.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0091293 A1, hereafter Suzuki) in view of Arasawa et al. (US 2011/0254037 A1, hereafter Arasawa), Osaka et al. (US 2017/0365782 A1, hereafter Osaka), Ossila et al. (Materials information of F4-TCNQ captured by the Wayback Machine on 07/07/2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20170707152859/https://www.ossila.com/products/f4tcnq, hereafter Ossila), Lee et al. (US 2011/0084259 A1, hereafter Lee), Pfeiffer et al. (“Controlled doping of phthalocyanine layers by cosublimation with acceptor molecules: A systematic Seebeck and conductivity study” Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, vol. 73, page 3202-3204, hereafter Pfeiffer), and Blochwitz et al. (“Low voltage organic light emitting diodes featuring doped phthalocyanine as hole transport material”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, vol. 73, page 729-731, hereafter Blochwitz), as evidenced by Seo et al. (US 2012/0286252 A1, hereafter Seo ‘252).
Regarding claims 1-6, 11-13, and 16-18, Suzuki discloses a light emitting device comprising halide in the hole transport layers ([0057]).
Suzuki exemplifies a light emitting device (Example 1 in [0206]-[0214]) comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (DBT3P-II:MoOx), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer (CzPA), an electron transport layer (Bphen), an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode.
In the hole injection layer, the composite material consisting of DBT3P-II and MoOx is each directed to hole transport material and electron acceptor material, respectively ([0083], [0107]).
Suzuki does not exemplify a specific light emitting device comprising BPAFLP and F4-TCNQ in the hole injection layer; however, Suzuki does teach that a material having a hole transport property can be used with an electron acceptor to form a composite material for the hole injection layer ([0083]). Suzuki exemplifies BPAFLP as the material having a hole transport property ([0092]) and F4-TCNQ as the acceptor material ([0083]).
Arasawa also teaches that the hole injection layer can be formed by a composite material comprising a mixture of an organic compound and an electron acceptor ([0136]). Arasawa teaches that BPAFLP can be the organic compound and F4-TCNQ can be the electron acceptor ([0138], [0141]).
Osaka discloses novel fluorene compound used for a light emitting device ([0002]). Osaka exemplifies compound (101) which has identical structure as the Compound BPAFLP of Suzuki ([0020]). Osaka teaches that the fluorene compound of Osaka has high hole transport property such that it provides the light emitting device with high light emission efficiency, low power consumption, and low driving voltage ([0014]).
Ossila teaches that F4-TCNQ is one of the most widely used and effective p-type dopants due to its strong electron accepting ability and extended pi system (first line under “Applications” on page 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Suzuki by substituting the hole transport material DBT3P-II with BPAFLP and the electron accepting material MoOx with F4-TCNQ, as taught by Suzuki, Arasawa, Osaka, and Ossila.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high hole transport property, high light emission efficiency, low power consumption, and low driving voltage based on the teaching of Osaka; and provide effective p-type doping, strong electron accepting ability, and extended pi conjugation, based on the teaching of Ossila.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitutions of the hole transport materials and the electron accepting materials to form the composite material of the hole injection layer would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). BPAFLP is one of finite number of exemplified hole transport materials and F4-TCNQ is one of finite number of exemplified electron accepting materials. Each selection of BPAFLP from the hole transport materials and F4-TCNQ from the electron accepting materials would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, and Ossila comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer (CzPA), an electron transport layer (Bphen), an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode.
The electron transport layers do not comprise a metal complex comprising a ligand comprising an 8-hydroxyquinolinato structure and a Li ion.
However, Suzuki does teach that the light emitting device comprises an electron transport layer disposed between the light emitting layer and the hole injection layer ([0070]-[0071], [0081]) and a substance having an electron transport property can be used for the electron transport layer ([0110]).
Lee discloses a light emitting device comprising an electron transport layer having multi-layered structure (Abstract).
Lee teaches the electron transport layer includes a first layer (first material), a first mixed layer (first material and second material), a second layer (second material), a second mixed layer (first material and second material), and a third layer (first material) ([0008]).
Lee teaches that the amount of the second material in the first and second mixed layers can be 30-70 wt%, 45 wt%, or 55 wt% based on 100 parts by weight of each layer ([0064]).
PNG
media_image2.png
322
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee exemplifies Compound 6 as the first material ([0060]) and Liq as the second material ([0061]).
Lee teaches that the stacked structure of the electron transport layer balances electron injection and transport, efficiently blocks holes, and increases the lifetime of the device ([0052], [0007]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, and Ossila by substituting the electron transport layers with stacked electron transport layers comprising a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee) as taught by Suzuki and Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to balance electron injection and transport, efficiently block holes, and increase the lifetime of the device based on the teaching of Lee.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the electron transport layers would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, and Lee comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer (LiF).
Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, and Lee discloses the claimed invention except for that the molar mixing ratio of the hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ). It should be noted that molar mixing ratio is a result effective variable.
Pfeiffer discloses a semiconducting thin film comprising a hole transport material (VOPc) and an electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) (Abstract, Fig. 1)
Pfeiffer teaches that the doping concentration of the electron accepting material in the hole transporting material increases hole density and hole mobility at the doping concentration up to 2 mol% (inset in Fig. 1a and Fig. 2). Pfeiffer also teaches that high doping concentration reduces the mobility of the hole because dopants act as scattering center reducing the mobility of carriers (page 3204, col. 1, paragraph 4).
Blochwitz discloses a light emitting device comprising a hole injection layer containing a hole transport material (VOPc) and an electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) (Abstract, Fig. 1).
Blochwitz teaches the luminescence efficiency increases with doping ratio, but the increase is weakened for larger dopant concentration (page 730, col. 2, last paragraph). Blochwitz teaches the current density is highest at a molar mixing ratio of 1.5 mol% (i.e. 1:65 of electron accepting material to hole transport material) (third row in Table I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create molar mixing ratio of the hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) to be around 1.5 to 2 mol%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the hole density, hole mobility, and luminescence efficiency, and current density of the light emitting device.
The modification provides Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer (LiF).
The Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the claimed properties; 1) the hole transport material has a HOMO level of higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than equal to -5.4 eV and a spin density of the hole injection layer measured by an ESR method is higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3 (claim 1), 2) HOMO level of the electron transport material is higher than or equal to -6.0 eV (claim 4), 3) the electron transport layer has an electron mobility higher than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 x 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] of electron transport layer is 600 (claim 6), 4) the electron accepting material is a material exhibiting an electron accepting property with respect to the hole transport material (claim 11) and a hole mobility lower than or equal to 1 x 10-3 cm2/Vs when the square root of electric field strength [V/m] is 600 (claim 12), 5) the electron mobility of the electron transport material (Compound 6 of Lee) is lower than the electron mobility of the host material (CzPA) (claim 16), and 6) the emission center material (1,6mMemFLPAPm ) emits blue fluorescence (claims 17-18).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz inherently possesses the claimed properties 1) to 6) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
With respect to the HOMO level of the hole transport material in the property 1), the instant specification states that the hole transport material of the invention has a HOMO level of higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than equal to -5.4 eV ([0022], [0044]). The hole transport material (BPAFLP) of the device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz have identical structure as the specific embodiments of hole transport material in the instant specification ([0047]). Therefore, the hole transport material (BPAFLP) has a HOMO level of higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than equal to -5.4 eV.
With respect to the spin density in the property 1), the instant specification recites the spin density of the hole injection layer measured by an ESR method is higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3 (multiple locations including at least [0012], [0024], [0045]). The hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) of the hole injection layer of the device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz have identical structures as the specific embodiments of the hole transport material and the electron accepting material in the instant specification, respectively ([0047], [0046]). Furthermore, the structure of BPAFLP is similar as Applicant’s specific embodiment FLPAPA. The instant specification shows that the spin density of FLPAPA film doped by an acceptor at molar ratio of around 1-2 mol% is around 1E18 spins/cm3 (Fig. 22; and see the extrapolation of two solid triangular symbols in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, a spin density of the hole injection layer of the device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz measured by an ESR method should be higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3 and 13.
For the property 2), the instant specification states that the HOMO level of the electron transport material is higher than or equal to -6.0 eV ([0015]). The electron transport material (Compound 6 of Lee) has identical structure as the specific embodiment ZADN of the instant specification (Table 1). Therefore, the HOMO level of the electron transport material is higher than or equal to -6.0 eV, meeting all the limitations of claims 4-5.
For the property 3), the instant specification states that the electron transport layer has an electron mobility higher than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 x 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] of electron transport layer is 600 ([0017]). The electron transport layer of the device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz (i.e. the first or second mixed layer) consists of the Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44. Compound 6 and Liq are each identical to the constituting materials ZADN and Liq of the electron transport layer of the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (Tables 1 and 2). Therefore, the electron transport layer has an electron mobility higher than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 x 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] of electron transport layer is 600, meeting all the limitations of claim 6.
For the property 4), the instant specification states that the electron accepting material is a material exhibiting an electron accepting property with respect to the hole transport material ([0022]) and a hole mobility lower than or equal to 1 x 10-3 cm2/Vs when the square root of electric field strength [V/m] is 600 ([0023], [0048]). The hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) of the hole injection layer of the device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz have identical structure as the specific embodiments of hole transport material and the electron accepting material in the instant specification, respectively ([0047], [0046]). Furthermore, Suzuki teaches that the hole mobility of the hole transport material of Suzuki is 10-6 cm2/Vs or more ([0092]). The Compound BPAFLP is one of specific embodiments of the hole transport material of Suzuki ([0092]). Therefore, the electron accepting material is a material exhibiting an electron accepting property with respect to the hole transport material and the hole transport material has a hole mobility lower than or equal to 1 x 10-3 cm2/Vs when the square root of electric field strength [V/m] is 600, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-12.
For the property 5), the instant specification states that the light emitting device of the invention, the electron mobility of the electron transport material is lower than the electron mobility of the host material ([0030]). The electron transport material (Compound 6 of Lee) has identical structure as the specific embodiment ZADN of the instant specification (Table 1). The host material (CzPA) has identical structure as one of specific and preferred embodiments of the instant invention ([0081]). Therefore, the electron mobility of the electron transport material (Compound 6 of Lee) is lower than the electron mobility of the host material (CzPA) (claim 16), meeting all the limitations of claim 16.
For the property 6) the compound 1,6mMemFLPAPm has identical structure as the specific embodiments of fluorescent substances of the instant invention ([0059]-[0060]). Furthermore, Seo ‘252 evidences that the light emitting device comprising the 1,6mMemFLPAPm as the emitter of the device emits blue light (Table 5, [0153]). Therefore, the emission center material (1,6mMemFLPAPm ) emits blue fluorescence (claims 17-18), meeting all the limitations of claims 17-18.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-10, the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee).
The second mixed layer and the third layer reads on all the limitations of the first and second regions of an electron transport layer.
Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz is equated with a light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a fluorescent dopant), a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a first region of an electron transport layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second region of an electron transport layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode.
Regarding claim 19, the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee).
Suzuki does not disclose a specific electronic device comprising the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, or a microphone.
However, Suzuki does teach that a light emitting device can be incorporated in an electronic device (i.e. portable game machine) with a microphone ([0171], Fig. 8C).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz by incorporating it into a portable game machine with a microphone, as taught by Suzuki and Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of a light emitting devices in a portable game machine would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides an electronic device comprising the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a microphone.
Regarding claim 20, the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee).
Suzuki does not disclose a specific light emitting apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a transistor.
However, Suzuki does teach that a light emitting device can be incorporated in a light emitting apparatus (i.e. active matrix light emitting device) with a transistor (“TFT” in [0132]-[0145], Fig. 3A and 3B).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz by incorporating it into an active matrix light emitting device with a transistor, as taught by Suzuki and Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of a light emitting devices in an active matrix light emitting device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a light emitting apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a transistor.
Regarding claim 21, the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee).
Suzuki does not disclose a specific lighting device comprising the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a housing.
However, Suzuki does teach that a light emitting device can be incorporated in a lighting device (i.e. “table lamp”) with a housing ([0182], Fig. 10).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz by incorporating it into a table lamp with a housing, as taught by Suzuki and Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of a light emitting devices in a lighting device would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a lighting device comprising the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a housing.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0091293 A1) in view of Arasawa et al. (US 2011/0254037 A1), Osaka et al. (US 2017/0365782 A1), Ossila et al. (Materials information of F4-TCNQ captured by the Wayback Machine on 07/07/2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20170707152859/https://www.ossila.com/products/f4tcnq), Lee et al. (US 2011/0084259 A1), Pfeiffer et al. (“Controlled doping of phthalocyanine layers by cosublimation with acceptor molecules: A systematic Seebeck and conductivity study” Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, vol. 73, page 3202-3204), and Blochwitz et al. (“Low voltage organic light emitting diodes featuring doped phthalocyanine as hole transport material”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, vol. 73, page 729-731) as applied to claims 1-13 and 16-21 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1, hereafter Seo ‘860), as evidenced by Sung et al. (US 2013/0153903 A1, hereafter Sung).
Regarding claims 13-15, the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (PCzPA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a dopant), a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), an electron injection layer (LiF), and a cathode.
The hole transport layer material of the device is not m-MTDATA; however, Suzuki does teach that m-MTDATA (4,4’,4”-tris[N-(3-methylphenyl)-N-phenylamino]triphenylamine) can be used for the hole transport layer ([0092]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz by substituting the hole transport layer material PCzPA with m-MTDATA as taught by Suzuki.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the hole transport layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The selection of m-MTDATA as the hole transport layer material would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The resultant device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (m-MTDATA), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer (LiF).
The device does not comprise a mixed layer between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer.
Seo ‘860 teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [050]).
Seo ‘860 teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([054]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz by incorporating a mixed layer between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, as taught by Seo ‘860.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo ‘860.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Xia, Lee and Seo ‘860 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (m-MTDATA), a mixed layer comprising m-MTDATA, a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer (LiF).
The Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Xia, Lee and Seo ‘860 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the mixed layer comprising m-MTDATA is capable of blocking electrons.
It is reasonable to presume that the mixed layer comprising m-MTDATA is capable of blocking electrons.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Sung evidences that m-MTDATA is used as the electron blocking layer material of a light emitting device and states that m-MTDATA effectively blocks electron transmission and suitable as electron blocking layer material ([0075]-[0076]).
Therefore, the mixed layer is capable of blocking electrons such that the mixed layer is equated with an electron blocking layer.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Xia, Lee and Seo ‘860 product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Light emitting device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Xia, Lee and Seo ‘860 is equated with a light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a first hole transport layer (m-MTDATA), a second hole transport layer (electron blocking layer) comprising m-MTDATA, a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and 1,6mMemFLPAPm as a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer (LiF), wherein the second hole transport layer functions as an electron blocking layer.
Claims 1-13 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arasawa et al. (US 2011/0254037 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0084259 A1), Pfeiffer et al. (“Controlled doping of phthalocyanine layers by cosublimation with acceptor molecules: A systematic Seebeck and conductivity study” Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, vol. 73, page 3202-3204), and Blochwitz et al. (“Low voltage organic light emitting diodes featuring doped phthalocyanine as hole transport material”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, vol. 73, page 729-731), as evidenced by Seo et al. (US 2012/0286252 A1).
Regarding claims 1-6, 11-13, and 16-18, Arasawa discloses a light emitting device comprising halide in the hole transport layers ([0057]).
Arasawa exemplifies a light emitting device (Fig. 7, [0128]) comprising an anode (121), a hole injection layer (1111), a hole transport layer (1112), a light emitting layer (1113), an electron transport layer (1114), an electron injection layer (1115), and a cathode (131).
Arasawa does not exemplifies a specific light emitting device comprising BPAFLP and F4-TCNQ; however, Arasawa does teach that the hole injection layer can be a composite material comprising an organic compound and an electron acceptor ([0136]), and exemplifies BPAFLP as the organic compound ([0138]) and F4-TCNQ as the electron acceptor ([0141]). Arasawa teaches that the hole transport layer material can be BPAFLP ([0143]). Arasawa teaches the light emitting layer can comprise a blue fluorescence emitter ([0146]) and a host CzPA ([0150]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Arasawa by substituting the hole injection layer material with a composite material comprising BPAFLP and F4-TCNQ, the hole transport layer with BPAFLP, and the light emitting layer material with a host CzPA doped with a blue fluorescence emitter, as taught by Arasawa.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Each substitution of the hole injection layer materials, hole transport layer materials, and the light emitting layer materials would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Each selection of the hole injection layer material, the hole transport layer material, and the light emitting host material from the specific examples would have been one from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Arasawa comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode.
The electron transport layers do not comprise a metal complex comprising a ligand comprising an 8-hydroxyquinolinato structure and a Li ion.
However, Arasawa does teach that the structure of the light emitting device between the anode and the cathode is not limited and can be a layer formed using a substance with a high electron transport property and high electron injection property ([0156]).
Lee discloses a light emitting device comprising an electron transport layer having multi-layered structure (Abstract).
Lee teaches the electron transport layer includes a first layer (first material), a first mixed layer (first material and second material), a second layer (second material), a second mixed layer (first material and second material), and a third layer (first material) ([0008]).
Lee teaches that the amount of the second material in the first and second mixed layers can be 30-70 wt%, 45 wt%, or 55 wt% based on 100 parts by weight of each layer ([0064]).
PNG
media_image2.png
322
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee exemplifies Compound 6 as the first material ([0060]) and Liq as the second material ([0061]).
Lee teaches that the stacked structure of the electron transport layer balances electron injection and transport, efficiently blocks holes, and increases the lifetime of the device ([0052], [0007]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Arasawa by substituting the electron transport layer with stacked electron transport layers comprising a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee) as taught by Arasawa and Lee.
The motivation of doing so would have been to balance electron injection and transport, efficiently block holes, and increase the lifetime of the device based on the teaching of Lee.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer.
Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee discloses the claimed invention except for that the molar mixing ratio of the hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ). It should be noted that molar mixing ratio is a result effective variable.
Pfeiffer discloses a semiconducting thin film comprising a hole transport material (VOPc) and an electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) (Abstract, Fig. 1)
Pfeiffer teaches that the doping concentration of the electron accepting material in the hole transporting material increases hole density and hole mobility at the doping concentration up to 2 mol% (inset in Fig. 1a and Fig. 2). Pfeiffer also teaches that high doping concentration reduces the mobility of the hole because dopants act as scattering center reducing the mobility of carriers (page 3204, col. 1, paragraph 4).
Blochwitz discloses a light emitting device comprising a hole injection layer containing a hole transport material (VOPc) and an electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) (Abstract, Fig. 1).
Blochwitz teaches the luminescence efficiency increases with doping ratio, but the increase is weakened for larger dopant concentration (page 730, col. 2, last paragraph). Blochwitz teaches the current density is highest at a molar mixing ratio of 1.5 mol% (i.e. 1:65 of electron accepting material to hole transport material) (third row in Table I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create molar mixing ratio of the hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) to be around 1.5 to 2 mol%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the hole density, hole mobility, and luminescence efficiency, and current density of the light emitting device.
The modification provides Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer.
The Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the claimed properties; 1) the hole transport material has a HOMO level of higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than equal to -5.4 eV and a spin density of the hole injection layer measured by an ESR method is higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3 (claim 1), 2) HOMO level of the electron transport material is higher than or equal to -6.0 eV (claim 4), 3) the electron transport layer has an electron mobility higher than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 x 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] of electron transport layer is 600 (claim 6), 4) the electron accepting material is a material exhibiting an electron accepting property with respect to the hole transport material (claim 11) and a hole mobility lower than or equal to 1 x 10-3 cm2/Vs when the square root of electric field strength [V/m] is 600 (claim 12), and 5) the electron mobility of the electron transport material (Compound 6 of Lee) is lower than the electron mobility of the host material (CzPA) (claim 16).
It is reasonable to presume that the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz inherently possesses the claimed properties 1) to 5) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
With respect to the HOMO level of the hole transport material in the property 1), the instant specification states that the hole transport material of the invention has a HOMO level of higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than equal to -5.4 eV ([0022], [0044]). The hole transport material (BPAFLP) of the device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz have identical structure as the specific embodiments of hole transport material in the instant specification ([0047]). Therefore, the hole transport material (BPAFLP) has a HOMO level of higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than equal to -5.4 eV.
With respect to the spin density in the property 1), the instant specification recites the spin density of the hole injection layer measured by an ESR method is higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3 (multiple locations including at least [0012], [0024], [0045]). The hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) of the hole injection layer of the device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz have identical structures as the specific embodiments of the hole transport material and the electron accepting material in the instant specification, respectively ([0047], [0046]). Furthermore, the structure of BPAFLP is similar as Applicant’s specific embodiment FLPAPA. The instant specification shows that the spin density of FLPAPA film doped by an acceptor at molar ratio of around 1-2 mol% is around 1E18 spins/cm3 (Fig. 22; and see the extrapolation of two solid triangular symbols in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, a spin density of the hole injection layer of the device of Suzuki as modified by Arasawa, Osaka, Ossila, Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz measured by an ESR method should be higher than or equal to 1 x 1016 spins/cm3 lower than or equal to 1 x 1019 spins/cm3, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-3, 13, and 17-18.
For the property 2), the instant specification states that the HOMO level of the electron transport material is higher than or equal to -6.0 eV ([0015]). The electron transport material (Compound 6 of Lee) has identical structure as the specific embodiment ZADN of the instant specification (Table 1). Therefore, the HOMO level of the electron transport material is higher than or equal to -6.0 eV, meeting all the limitations of claims 4-5.
For the property 3), the instant specification states that the electron transport layer has an electron mobility higher than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 x 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] of electron transport layer is 600 ([0017]). The electron transport layer of the device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz (i.e. the first or second mixed layer) consists of the Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44. Compound 6 and Liq are each identical to the constituting materials ZADN and Liq of the electron transport layer of the specific embodiment of the instant disclosure (Tables 1 and 2). Therefore, the electron transport layer has an electron mobility higher than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 x 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] of electron transport layer is 600, meeting all the limitations of claim 6.
For the property 4), the instant specification states that the electron accepting material is a material exhibiting an electron accepting property with respect to the hole transport material ([0022]) and a hole mobility lower than or equal to 1 x 10-3 cm2/Vs when the square root of electric field strength [V/m] is 600 ([0023], [0048]). The hole transport material (BPAFLP) and the electron accepting material (F4-TCNQ) of the hole injection layer of the device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz have identical structure as the specific embodiments of hole transport material and the electron accepting material in the instant specification, respectively ([0047], [0046]). Furthermore, Arasawa teaches that the hole mobility of the hole transport material of Arasawa is 10-6 cm2/Vs or more ([0137]). The Compound BPAFLP is one of specific embodiments of the hole transport material of Arasawa ([0092]). Therefore, the electron accepting material is a material exhibiting an electron accepting property with respect to the hole transport material and the hole transport material has a hole mobility lower than or equal to 1 x 10-3 cm2/Vs when the square root of electric field strength [V/m] is 600, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-12.
For the property 5), the instant specification states that the light emitting device of the invention, the electron mobility of the electron transport material is lower than the electron mobility of the host material ([0030]). The electron transport material (Compound 6 of Lee) has identical structure as the specific embodiment ZADN of the instant specification (Table 1). The host material (CzPA) has identical structure as one of specific and preferred embodiments of the instant invention ([0081]). Therefore, the electron mobility of the electron transport material (Compound 6 of Lee) is lower than the electron mobility of the host material (CzPA) (claim 16), meeting all the limitations of claim 16.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-10, the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee).
The second mixed layer and the third layer reads on all the limitations of the first and second regions of an electron transport layer.
Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz is equated with a light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a fluorescent dopant), a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a first region of an electron transport layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second region of an electron transport layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer, and a cathode.
Regarding claims 19 and 21, the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee).
Arasawa in view of Xia and Lee does not disclose a specific electronic device comprising the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a sensor, an operation button, a speaker, or a microphone.
However, Arasawa does teach that a light emitting device can be incorporated in an electronic device (i.e. cellular phone) with a housing and microphone ([0201], Fig. 10D).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz by incorporating it into a cellular phone with a housing and a microphone, as taught by Arasawa and Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of a light emitting devices in a cellular phone would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a cellular phone comprising the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz, a housing and a microphone, wherein the cellular phone is an electronic device and also a lighting device.
Regarding claim 20, the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a dopant), an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee).
Arasawa in view of Xia and Lee does not disclose a specific light emitting apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a transistor.
However, Arasawa does teach that a light emitting device can be incorporated in a light emitting apparatus (Embodiment 1 in [0038]-[0042]) with a transistor (100 in Fig. 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz by incorporating it into a light emitting apparatus with a transistor, as taught by Arasawa and Lee.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of a light emitting devices in a light emitting apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a light emitting apparatus comprising the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz and a transistor.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arasawa et al. (US 2011/0254037 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0084259 A1), Pfeiffer et al. (“Controlled doping of phthalocyanine layers by cosublimation with acceptor molecules: A systematic Seebeck and conductivity study” Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, vol. 73, page 3202-3204), and Blochwitz et al. (“Low voltage organic light emitting diodes featuring doped phthalocyanine as hole transport material”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1998, vol. 73, page 729-731) as applied to claims 1-13 and 16-21 above, further in view of Seo et al. (US 2002/0121860 A1), as evidenced by Osaka et al. (US 2017/0365782 A1).
Regarding claims 13-15, the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz reads on all the features of claim 1 as outline above.
The device comprises an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a dopant), a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), and a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), an electron injection layer, and a cathode.
The device does not comprise a mixed layer between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer.
Seo ‘860 teaches that a mixed layer between two neighboring organic layers of an organic optoelectronic device (“organic light-emitting device”) contains both the neighboring organic layer materials (“mixed layer” (105) in Fig. 1B; [050]).
Seo ‘860 teaches that by introducing a mixed layer in-between two neighboring organic layers (device structure of Fig. 1B), the energy barrier is lowered and more carriers can be injected ([054]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Lee, Pfeiffer, and Blochwitz by incorporating a mixed layer between the hole transport layer and the light emitting layer, as taught by Seo ‘860.
The motivation of doing so would provide the organic optoelectronic device with lowered energy barrier and improved carrier injection, based on the teaching of Seo ‘860.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Xia, Lee and Seo ‘860 comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a mixed layer comprising BPAFLP, a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer.
The Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Xia, Lee and Seo ‘860 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the mixed layer comprising BPAFLP is capable of blocking electrons.
It is reasonable to presume that the mixed layer comprising BPAFLP is capable of blocking electrons.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Osaka evidences that BPAFLP has high ability to block electrons ([0308]).
Therefore, the mixed layer is capable of blocking electrons such that the mixed layer is equated with an electron blocking layer.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Xia, Lee and Seo ‘860 product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Light emitting device of Arasawa as modified by Xia, Lee and Seo ‘860 is equated with a light emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer (BPAFLP:F4-TCNQ with molar ratio of 1:0.015 to 1:0.02), a first hole transport layer (BPAFLP), a second hole transport layer (electron blocking layer) comprising BPAFLP, a light emitting layer (CzPA as a host and a blue fluorescent emitter as a fluorescent dopant), an electron transport layer, and a cathode, wherein the electron transport layer contains a first layer (Compound 6 of Lee), a first mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a second layer (Liq), a second mixed layer (Compound 6 of Lee and Liq with weight ratio of 45:55 or 55:44), a third layer (Compound 6 of Lee), and an electron injection layer, wherein the second hole transport layer functions as an electron blocking layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights