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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is a single drawing and the drawing should not comprise a label. Please remove the label Fig. 1 from the drawing. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “Fig. 1” should be replaced with the term “the Figure” throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 110957435) (hereafter “Li”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent, in view of Song et al. (US 2013/0069073) (hereafter “Song”) and Cha et al. (KR2018-0098121) (hereafter “Cha”), where a machine translation is used as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1-12, Li teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transporting layer, an electron blocking layer, a light emitting layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transporting layer, electron injection layer, and a cathode (pages 15 and 16 of the machine translation). Li teaches that the light emitting layer comprises an anthracene host material and a dopant (pages 3-13 of the machine translation). Li teaches that the host material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image1.png
248
110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
220
107
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
273
118
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image4.png
176
100
media_image4.png
Greyscale
are few examples and all meet applicant’s formula 1 and
PNG
media_image4.png
176
100
media_image4.png
Greyscale
is the same as claimed by the applicant (pages 3-10 of the machine translation). Li teaches that the T1 energy of the dopant is higher than the host material and the S1 of the host is higher than the dopant (pages 22-24 of the machine translation). Li teaches that the substituents on the anthracene compounds can form a fused ring (pages 3 and 4 of the machine translation). Li teaches that both hole transporting layer and the electron blocking layer are composed of arylamine and/or carbazole containing compounds (page 22 of the machine translation). Li teaches that the electroluminescent device can be used in display device (page 1 of the machine translation).
Li does not teach how the triplet energy of the electron blocking layer and the hole blocking layer relate to the triplet energy of the host material and does not teach where the electron transporting material is a triazine compound.
Song teaches that the T1 of the electron blocking layer and the T1 of the hole blocking layer should be higher than the T1 of the host material (paragraphs [0083]-[0096], Figs. 4 and 5). Song teaches that having this energy relationship prevents the excitons or electrons from leaving the light emitting layer and going into the other layers and effecting the efficiency of the device (paragraphs [0097]-[0102]).
Cha teaches electron transporting materials that can be used in electroluminescent devices that also comprise hole blocking layers (pages 75 and 76 of the machine translation). Cha teaches that the electron transporting material can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image5.png
137
126
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
99
119
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image7.png
308
222
media_image7.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (pages 36-42 of the machine translation). Cha teaches that using this compounds are electron transporting material leads to devices with improved efficiency and lifetimes (pages 74-76 of the machine translation and paragraph [0409] of the KR document).
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 Li so the T1 energy of the hole blocking material and the electron blocking material is higher than the T1 of the host material, as taught by Song, and where the electron transporting layer is composed
PNG
media_image5.png
137
126
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
99
119
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image7.png
308
222
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as taught by Cha. The motivation would have been to keep the excitons and electrons in the light emitting layer and improve the lifetime and efficiency of the device. The combination would lead to a device where the applicant’s claimed energy limitations would naturally flow. The Office points out claimed energy properties of 2-4 are common and well known in the art and the compounds of the combination would meet these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suh et al. (US 2019/0296243) teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anthracene host material (teaches compounds that meet the applicant’s claimed anthracene) and triazine electron transporting materials (these compounds meet the applicant’s claimed compounds).
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-Friday 7am-4pm.
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