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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation the energy level difference between the HOMO energy level of the second organic material and the HOMO energy level of the at least one host material is less than 0.25 eV, and the claim also recites preferably, the energy level difference between the HOMO energy level of the second organic material and the HOMO energy level of the at least one host material is less than 0.2 eV which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 8 and 18 recites the broad recitation an energy level difference between the HOMO energy level of the second organic material and a LUMO energy level of the first organic material is less than 0.23 eV, and the claim also recites preferably, the energy level difference between the HOMO energy level of the second organic material and the LUMO energy level of the first organic material is less than 0.2 eV; more preferably, the energy level difference between the HOMO energy level of the second organic material and the LUMO energy level of the first organic material is less than or equal to 0.1 eV which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 10 and 19 recites the broad recitation the second organic layer has a thickness of greater than 125 nm, and the claim also recites preferably, the second organic layer has a thickness of greater than 150 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2020/0062778) (hereafter “Cui”) as referenced by Seo et al. (US 2016/0028022) (hereafter “Seo”), in view of Choi et al. (US 2008/299365) (hereafter “Choi”).
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-20, Cui teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, a light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer, electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]). Cui teaches that the electron injection layer is composed of Liq (paragraphs [0270] and [0301]). Cui teaches that the light emitting layer can be composed of a host material and a dopant (paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]). Cui teaches that the host material can be
PNG
media_image1.png
136
209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
140
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]).
PNG
media_image1.png
136
209
media_image1.png
Greyscale
has a HOMO of -5.53 and
PNG
media_image2.png
140
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as a HOMO of -5.39 as taught by the applicant’s specification. Cui teaches the hole injection material can be
PNG
media_image3.png
219
189
media_image3.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image4.png
196
175
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]), which are the same as claimed by the applicant and have a LUMO of -5.11 eV and -5.17 eV as taught by the applicant’s specification. Cui teaches that the hole transporting layer is composed of
PNG
media_image5.png
201
276
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and can have a thickness of 80 nm or 120 nm (paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]). Seo shows that the HOMO of
PNG
media_image5.png
201
276
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is -5.36 eV (paragraph [0276]). Cui teaches that an electron blocking layer can be between the hole transporting layer and the light emitting layer and when the layer is present the change in voltage is not 110% difference and the thickness is 90% to 110% of the thickness of the hole injection layer (paragraphs [0270]-[0293] and [0301]-[0304]). Cui teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in a display assembly (paragraph [0061]).
Cui does not teach were the anode is made of ITO/Al and the cathode is composed of Mg-Ag and where the hole transporting layer is thicker than 125 nm.
Choi teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, which is reflective and made of ITO/Ag, and a cathode at is transparent and composed of Mg-Ag, and between the two electrodes are a hole transporting layer, light emitting layer, an electron transporting layer (paragraphs [0110]-[0113]). Choi teaches that the thickness of the hole transporting layer can be changed to improve the resonance of the layer and improve efficiency of the device (paragraph [0078]). Choi teaches that the thickness of the hole transporting layer can range from 10 nm to 200 nm (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cui to use the anode and cathode of Choi and the change the thickness of the hole transporting layer to improve the efficiency of the resonance and improve the efficiency of the device. Given that one would change the thickness of the hole transporting layer to find the best efficiency it would have been obvious to make the layer thicker than 125 nm given that Choi teaches that the layer can range from 10 to 200 nm.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2020/0062778) (hereafter “Cui”) as referenced by Seo et al. (US 2016/0028022) (hereafter “Seo”), in view of Choi et al. (US 2008/299365) (hereafter “Choi”) as applied to claims 1-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Thomson et al. (US 6,242,115) (hereafter “Thomson”).
Regarding claim 13, Cui does not limit the material of the hole transporting layer.
Cui in Choi does not teach a hole transporting material that meets the applicant’s claimed invention.
Thomson teaches hole transporting material that can be used in electroluminescent devices (column 28 lines 66-67 and column 29 lines 1-10). Thomson teaches that the hole transporting material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image6.png
66
91
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
67
85
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image8.png
59
116
media_image8.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (columns 9-22). Thomson teaches that the compounds act like other hole transporting materials that are used in electroluminescent devices (column 28 lines 66-67 and column 29 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hole transporting of Cui in view of Choi with the hole transporting material of Thomson,
PNG
media_image6.png
66
91
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
67
85
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image8.png
59
116
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. The substitution would have been one known hole transporting material with another know hole transporting material. The substitution would have been with an art recognized equivalent hole transporting material as discussed by Thomson. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the device of Cui in view of Choi to act in a similar manner when the compounds of Thomson are used as the hole transporting material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW K BOHATY whose telephone number is (571)270-1148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 5-6pm and 8-10pm, Tuesday and Wednesday 5:30am-12 pm and 8-10pm, Thursday 5:30-12 pm, 1-2pm, and 8-10pm, and Friday 5:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/ANDREW K BOHATY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759