DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 5-8, 11-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2016/0104854) (Jeon) in view of Kim et al (US 2018/0182991) (Kim2), Takeshi et al (US 2011/0240983) (Takeshi), and Jung et al (US 20170222158) (Jung).
In reference to claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11-12, and 16-19, Jeon teaches an organic light emitting display device comprising at least one light emitting layer between an anode and a cathode, an electron transport layer between the light emitting layer and the cathode including a first electron transport material and a second electron transport layer wherein the triplet energy of the first electron transport material has a triplet energy of 2.6 eV to 2.8 eV and the second electron transport material has a triplet energy of 1.6 eV to 2.0 eV (Jeon [0011] [0014] [0017]) and wherein the first electron transport material can be various materials such as triazoles among others (Jeon [0076]) and the second electron transport material can be various materials such as anthracene derivatives etc. substituted with a heteroaryl group (Jeon [0077]) and further includes an electron injection layer and hole transport layer (Jeon [0066]).
Jeon does not expressly teach that the electron injection layer includes a metal halide and a lanthanide material as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Kim2 teaches, in analogous art, compositions for electron injection layers of organic light emitting diodes wherein the layer comprises a metal halide such as KI doped with Yb at a ratio of 1:9 to 9:1 (Kim2 [0009], abstract, [0073] to [0076]) and further teaches that when used in the display device such materials lower driving voltage and increase efficiency (Kim2 [0119]).
In light of the motivation of using the electron injection materials as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the Ki and Yb mixture in the electron injection layer as described by Kim2 in order to provide a device with improved light emission efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Jeon in view of Kim2 does not expressly teach that the second electron transport material should be a material with the structure instantly claimed but generally teaches it as an anthracene derivative etc. substituted with a heteroaryl group for electron transport.
With respect to the difference, Takeshi teaches, in analogous art, triazine materials for organic electroluminescent devices that comprise either anthracene groups, pyrene groups etc. such as the compound show below for use in an electron transport layer (Takeshi [0028] [0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
212
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takeshi further teaches that when used in a device, the device has a long continuous driving lifetime (Takeshi [0010]).
In light of the motivation of using compound 4 as an electron transport material as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound 4 as described by Takeshi in order to give a device with a long continuous driving lifetime thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Jeon in view of Kim2 and Takeshi does not expressly teach that the first electron transport material should be a material with the structure instantly claimed but generally teaches it as a heterocycle with a high triplet energy.
With respect to the difference, Jung teaches, in analogous art, compound A-5 as shown below for use in an electron transport layer of organic electronic devices (Jung [0119]) and that its use as such improves efficiency and lifetime of the device (Jung [0120]).
PNG
media_image2.png
254
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using compound A-5 as an electron transport material as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound A-5 as described by Jung in order to improve efficiency, and/or device lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on the claimed device structure wherein compound A-5 reads on the second compound, compound 4 reads on the first compound, KI reads on the metal halide and Yb is the lanthanide and reads on the claimed range.
For Claim 2: Reads on the claimed configuration.
For Claim 5: Reads on an alkali metal halide.
For Claim 6: Reads on K.
For Claim 8: Reads on no metals.
For Claim 11: Reads on benzene.
For Claim 12: Reads on 1(4).
For Claim 16: Reads on 1-16.
For Claim 17: Reads on 2-1.
For Claim 18: Reads on the claimed device structure.
For Claim 19: Reads on an apparatus.
In reference to claim 3, Jeon in view of Kim2, Takeshi, and Jung teaches the device as described above for claim 1 and further teaches the electron transport layer has a thickness from 5 nm to 45 nm (50 to 450 Å) (Jeon [0021]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 7, Jeon in view of Kim2, Takeshi, and Jung teaches the device as described above for claim 1 and further teaches the electron injection layer has a thickness from 1 to 50 Å) (Kim [0081]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to claim 20, Jeon in view of Kim2, Takeshi, and Jung teaches the device as described above for claim 19 and further teaches that these devices can also include color filters (Jeon [0006]). While Jeon in view of Kim does not exemplify this exact device configuration, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have employed known and taught device applications as set forth by the prior art before the effective filing date of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights