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 1-17, 20-28, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al (US 2014/0239273) (Mizutani).
In reference to claims 1-8, 16-17, 20-21, 23-26, and 31-34, Mizutani teaches a device comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, an optional hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole injecting layer, and an electron injection layer (Mizutani [0195]-[0200]; Fig. 1) wherein the electron transport layer comprises an anthracene compound such as the compound shown below (Mizutani [0191]) that reduces the driving voltage (Mizutani [0204]) with a layer thickness of several nm to 1 micron (Mizutani [0218]) and exemplifies a layer of 145 nm (Mizutani [0247]).
PNG
media_image1.png
286
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given that Mizutani discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the electron transport layer comprises the anthracene derivative above, 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 Mizutani and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Mizutani does not require that the electron transport layer does not comprise a metal dopant, Mizutani also does not teach or even suggest that such a metal dopant might be present. The ordinarily skilled artisan, given the teachings of Mizutani would have found it immediately obvious not to have added additional features not taught by Mizutani.
For Claim 1: Reads on an anode, and a cathode, an emitting layer, the electron transport layer reads on a first layer of 145 nm, the anthracene derivative reads on a compound of formula 100 wherein X2 is N, and each other X is CR, LA is a single bond, A is a substituted anthracene.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula (1) wherein R1 and R2 are naphthalene.
For Claim 3: Reads on formula (101) wherein R19 and R20 are naphthalene and other R# are hydrogen.
For Claim 4: Reads on formula A1.
For Claim 5: Reads on wherein R19 and R20 are naphthalene.
For Claim 6: Reads on wherein R19 and R20 are naphthalene.
For Claim 7: Reads on wherein R19 and R20 are naphthalene.
For Claim 8: Reads on formula (A1-1).
For Claim 16: Reads on wherein A is substituted anthracene.
For Claim 17: Reads on wherein A is substituted anthracene.
For Claim 20: Reads on wherein one of X is a nitrogen atom.
For Claim 21: Reads on wherein X2 is N.
For Claim 23: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are each naphthalene.
For Claim 24: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are each naphthalene.
For Claim 25: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are each naphthalene.
For Claim 26: Reads on wherein LA is a single bond.
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.
For Claim 34: Reads on wherein an electron injection layer is a third layer.
In reference to claims 22 and 27-28, Mizutani teaches a device comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole injecting layer, and an electron injection layer (Mizutani [0195]-[0200]; Fig. 1) wherein the electron transport layer comprises an anthracene compound such as the compound shown below (Mizutani [0191]) that reduces the driving voltage (Mizutani [0204]) with a layer thickness of several nm to 1 micron (Mizutani [0218]) and exemplifies a layer of 145 nm (Mizutani [0247]).
PNG
media_image2.png
352
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given that Mizutani discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the electron transport layer comprises the anthracene derivative above, 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 Mizutani and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claims 11 to 15, Mizutani teaches a device comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole injecting layer, and an electron injection layer (Mizutani [0195]-[0200]; Fig. 1) wherein the electron transport layer comprises an anthracene compound such as the compound shown below (Mizutani [0191]) that reduces the driving voltage (Mizutani [0204]) with a layer thickness of several nm to 1 micron (Mizutani [0218]) and exemplifies a layer of 145 nm (Mizutani [0247]).
PNG
media_image3.png
304
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Given that Mizutani discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the electron transport layer comprises the anthracene derivative above, 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 Mizutani and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula B1 wherein R4 and R5 are phenyl that are fused.
For Claim 12: Reads on wherein R4 and R5 are phenyl that are fused.
For Claim 13: Reads on wherein R4 and R5 are phenyl that are fused.
For Claim 14: Reads on wherein B is fused aryl.
For Claim 15: Reads on formula B1-2.
In reference to claims 9-10, Mizutani teaches a device comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, an electron transport layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole injecting layer, and an electron injection layer (Mizutani [0195]-[0200]; Fig. 1) wherein the electron transport layer comprises an anthracene compound such as the compound shown below (Mizutani [0191]) that reduces the driving voltage (Mizutani [0204]) with a layer thickness of several nm to 1 micron (Mizutani [0218]) and exemplifies a layer of 145 nm (Mizutani [0247]).
PNG
media_image4.png
214
214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Given that Mizutani discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the electron transport layer comprises the anthracene derivative above, 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 Mizutani and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 9: Reads on formula A1-2 wherein R1 and R2 are hydrogen, X2 is CH, X1 and X3 are each N, and R19 and R13 are each phenyl.
For Claim 10: Reads on wherein R19 is a phenyl.
Claim 30 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 30, Mizutani teaches the device as described above for claim 1. Mizutani teaches that the layers of the device can be from several nanometers to 1 micron to avoid increases in drive voltage from the layers being too thick or pinhole defects caused by overly thin layers (Mizutani [0219]). Mizutani does not specifically teach that the cathode side transport layers (i.e. first layer as claimed) should be thicker than the anode side 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 Mizutani 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 Mizutani in view of Lee, including over the presently claimed relative thicknesses, in order to optimize charge balance and recombination in the emission layer.
Claim 1-2, 16-19, 22-25, 27-29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimae et al (WO 2017/221999) (Nishimae).
In reference to claims 1-2, 16-19, 22-25, 27-29 and 31-34, Nishimae teaches a device comprising an anode, a cathode, a light emitting layer, a hole transport layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron blocking layer, a hole injecting layer, and an electron injection layer (Nishimae [0193]) wherein the electron transport layer comprises an conjugated boron compound such as the compound shown below (Nishimae [0194]) that improves the driving voltage and efficiency among others (Nishimae abstract) with a layer thickness of 1 nm to 100 micron (Nishimae [0368]). 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).
PNG
media_image5.png
168
186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given that Nishimae discloses the device structure that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the electron transport layer comprises the compound 11 above, 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 Nishimae and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Nishimae does not require that the electron transport layer does not comprise a metal dopant, Nishimae teaches that such a component is merely an optional addition and that preferably the concentration of the compound 11 above is up to 100% by weight of the electron transport layer (Nishimae [0179] [0192]) and Nishimae exemplifies several devise without doped electron transport layers (Nishimae Table 2). The ordinarily skilled artisan, given the teachings of Nishimae would have found it immediately obvious not to have added additional optional features and to have used a concentration of compound 11 of 100% as taught by Nishimae.
For Claim 1: Reads on an anode, and a cathode, an emitting layer, the electron transport layer reads on a first layer, the anthracene derivative reads on a compound of formula 100 wherein X1, X2 and X3 are N, and each other X is CR wherein R is unsubstituted phenyl, LA is a unsubstituted phenylene, A is an unsubstituted fused heteroaryl with 17 ring atoms.
For Claim 2: Reads on formula (1) wherein R1 and R2 are phenyl.
For Claim 16-18: Reads on an unsubstituted fuse heterocycle with 17 ring atoms.
For Claim 19: Reads on a compound having two or more heteroatoms as ring atoms.
For Claim 22: Reads on each are N.
For Claim 23 to 25: Reads on wherein R1 and R2 are each phenyl.
For Claim 27 to 28: Reads on formula L1-2.
For Claim 29: Reads on unsubstituted.
For Claim 31: Reads on 100 nm.
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.
For Claim 34: Reads on wherein an electron injection layer is a third layer.
Conclusion
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