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, 12-15, 20, 22-25 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2019/0067595) (Jang) and further in view of Lee et al (Mater. Res. Express (5) 076201, 2018) (Lee).
In reference to claims 1, 12-13, 20, 22-25 and 29-33, Jang teaches a device comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, an optional hole blocking layer, a first electron transport layer, a second electron transport layer between the first electron transport layer and the cathode, an electron blocking layer, a hole injecting layer, and an electron injection layer (Jang [0004], [0009]; [0121]; [0443]) wherein the first electron transport layer comprises a compound of formula 1 (Jang [0009]) such as the compound 1-5 (Jang [0258]) and the second electron transport layer comprises a compound of formula 3 as shown below and an n-dopant.
PNG
media_image1.png
162
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
256
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given that Jang discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the first electron transport layer comprises the compounds of formula 1 and the second electron transport layer comprises the compounds of formula 3, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use device structure, which is both disclosed by Jang and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Jang does not require that the electron transport layer does not comprise a metal dopant, Jang also does not teach or even suggest that such a metal dopant must be present. The ordinarily skilled artisan, given the teachings of Jang would have found it immediately obvious not to have added additional features not required by Jang.
Jang is silent with respect to the thickness of the electron transport layers.
However, such an optimization is routine in the art.
With respect to the difference, Lee teaches, in analogous art, the effects of the thickness of the electron transport layer in sample OLED devices. Lee concludes that varying the thickness of the electron transport layer from thinner than the hole transport layer(s) to thicker than the hole transport layer(s) results in reductions in driving voltage by improving charge balance and concentrating recombination in the emission layer (Lee abstract, conclusion).
In light of the motivation of using thicker electron transport layers 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 thicker electron transport as described by Lee in order to improve driving voltage by optimizing the layer thickness and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Jang in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose the relative layer thicknesses as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary electron transport layer thickness taught by Jang in view of Lee, including over the presently claimed relative thicknesses, in order to optimize charge balance and recombination in the emission layer.
For Claim 1: Reads on an anode, and a cathode, an emitting layer, the first electron transport layer reads on a first layer, the second electron transport layer reads on a third layer, the compound of formula 1-5 reads on formula B1 wherein R4 and R5 are each phenyl, R1 is phenyl, R2 is biphenyl, X1, X2 and X3 are each N, LA is a single bond, the compound of formula 3 reads on an azole and the layer thickness as claimed.
For Claim 12: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 13: Reads on phenyl.
For Claim 20: Reads on wherein one of X1, X2 and X3 is a nitrogen atom.
For Claim 22: Reads on wherein X1, X2 and X3 are each N.
For Claim 23: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are phenyl or biphenyl.
For Claim 24: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are phenyl or biphenyl.
For Claim 25: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are phenyl or biphenyl.
For Claim 29: Reads on unsubstituted.
For Claim 30: Reads on the distances as claimed.
For Claim 31: Reads on 100 nm or more.
For Claim 32: Reads on wherein the emitting layer and transport layer are in contact.
For Claim 33: Reads on wherein the optional hole blocking layer is a second layer.
In reference to claims 14-15, Jang in view of Lee teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Jang further teaches that the phenyl groups on the fluorene can be fused to form a spiro ring (Jang [0016]).
Jang discloses the compound that encompasses the presently claimed compounds, including the formation of a spiro ring. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Jang are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Jang and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al (US 2014/0239273) (Mizutani) and further in view of Lee et al (Mater. Res. Express (5) 076201, 2018) (Lee).
In reference to claim 21, Jang in view of Lee teaches the device as described above for claim 1.
Jang does not specifically teach that the electron transport layer can include a pyridine instead of a triazine compound.
With respect to the difference, Ahn teaches, in analogous art, materials of formula 1 that overlaps with the formula 1 of Jang for use in an organic electroluminescent device including compound C-79 . Ahn further teaches that the use of these materials imparts low driving voltage, high luminous and power efficiency and long lifetime (Ahn [0009] [0044]).
PNG
media_image3.png
350
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using C-79 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 c-79 as described by Ahn in order to impart low driving voltage, high luminous and power efficiency and long lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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