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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT JP 2020/016578, filed on 04/15/2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 21 require an organic layer containing an aromatic compound having a functional group capable of chemically bonding to the first inorganic hole-transport material. Claims 1, 21, and the specification do not further define what “capable of chemically bonding to the first inorganic hole-transport layer” means. For example, this could mean chemisorption or could involve a chemical reaction using other reagents. Additionally, these processes could involve a catalyst in order for the chemical reaction to take place, which is not discussed within the specification. Formula 1 [0028] and Formula 2 [0082] are provided within the specification to describe the aromatic compound, however they are exceptionally broad (shown below). R1 and R5 preferably a carboxyl group, silanol group, phosphonate group, thiol group, or amino group within the specification [0025] [0095], however those groups are not specified in claims 1 and 21.
PNG
media_image1.png
109
141
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
122
179
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The only embodied structures within the specification are shown by Formula 3 [0103] and Formula 4 [0104] (shown below).
PNG
media_image3.png
270
191
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
250
232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, the specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials might be usable for the aromatic compound, but provides no further description of how a functional group of the aromatic compound could be chemically bonded to the inorganic hole-transport material. The limited examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-1-ii)
Claims 2, 5, 13, 16, 17, 18 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore for the reason outlined above with respect to claim 1 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 42, 43, 46, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jin et al. (Pub.No.: US 2021/0234100 A1, provided within Applicants' IDS, hereafter Jin).
Regarding Claim 1, Jin teaches an OLED device comprising an anode, a first functional layer, a second functional layer, a light emitting layer, a third functional layer, and a cathode. The first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101] (shown below in Fig. 4 of Jin),
PNG
media_image5.png
628
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the organic molecule layer is comprised of trifluoromethylbenzoic acid [0084] (shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
600
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Trifluoromethylbenzoic acid reads on Applicants’ limitation since it contains a carboxyl group, corresponding to Applicants’ R1, and a trifluoromethyl group, corresponding to Applicants’ R2, connected by an aromatic ring.
Regarding Claim 2, Jin teaches an OLED device as discussed above with trifluoromethylbenzoic acid as the aromatic compound [0084], which contains a carboxyl group.
Regarding Claim 5, Jin teaches an OLED device as discussed above with trifluoromethylbenzoic acid as the aromatic compound [0084], which reads on Applicants’ Formula 1 (shown below) wherein R1 is a carboxyl group and R2 is a trifluoromethyl group.
PNG
media_image1.png
109
141
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 42 and 43, Jin teaches a first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101].
Regarding Claims 46 and 47, Jin teaches a second functional layer includes poly-TPD (4-butyl-N,N-diphenylaniline homopolymer) and PVK (polyvinylcarbazole) [0101], which reads on Applicants’ limitation since PVK is a carbazole derivative.
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 21, 38, 39, 40, 51, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (Pub.No.: US 2021/0234100 A1).
Regarding Claims 21 and 38, Jin teaches an OLED device comprising an anode, a first functional layer, a second functional layer, a light emitting layer, a third functional layer, and a cathode. The first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101] (shown below in Fig. 4 of Jin). The second functional layer includes poly-TPD (4-butyl-N,N-diphenylaniline homopolymer) and PVK (polyvinylcarbazole) [0101].
PNG
media_image5.png
628
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jin further teaches that the organic molecule that makes up the organic molecule layer can be represented by structural formula (II), exemplified by Jin 1 (shown below) [0018] – [0019]
PNG
media_image7.png
121
209
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
247
254
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein Q is a triphenylamine, R is a trifluoromethyl, and n is 1 or greater.
However, Jin does not teach an embodiment using Jin 1 as the organic molecule layer within an OLED device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jin 1, because it would have been choosing between the exemplified structures taught by Jin, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the organic layer bonded to an inorganic hole-injection layer of the OLED device of Jin and possessing the surface work function benefits which thereby increase the EQE and brightness of an OLED [0105] taught by Jin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional device structures using different embodied structures taught by Jin having the benefits taught by Jin in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
An OLED device, as modified above, using Jin 1 as the organic molecule layer reads on Applicants’ limitations of R5 contains a functional group capable of chemically bonding to the first inorganic hole-transport material (carboxyl group) and R6 being a functional group for transporting holes (triphenylamine).
Regarding Claims 39 and 40, An OLED device, as modified above, using Jin 1 as the organic molecule layer reads on Applicants’ limitations since Jin 1 contains a methyl at the end wherein one of the hydrogens is R7.
Regarding Claims 51 and 52, An OLED device, as modified above, using Jin 1 as the organic molecule layer reads on Applicants’ limitations of R5 contains a functional group capable of chemically bonding to the first inorganic hole-transport material (carboxyl group) and R6 being a functional group for transporting holes (triphenylamine).
Claims 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0234100 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 21, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52 above, and further in view of Liao et al. (Pub. No.: US 2003/0170491 A1, hereafter Liao).
Jin teaches an OLED device comprising an anode, a first functional layer, a second functional layer, a light emitting layer, a third functional layer, and a cathode. The first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101] (shown below in Fig. 4 of Jin).
PNG
media_image5.png
628
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Jin does not teach a stacked OLED device wherein the OLED device described above further comprises a second anode, a second electrode, a second light-emitting layer disposed between the second anode and the second cathode … as described in claim 16 of the instant application.
Liao teaches a stacked OLED comprised of several OLED units. For example in Fig. 1 from Liao, OLED units 1, 2, and 3 have their own anode (11, 21, and 31), cathode (13, 23, and 33), and organic EL medium (12, 22, and 32). The organic EL medium of each OLED unit in the stacked OLED 100 preferably includes an HTL, at least one light emitting layer (LEL) and an ETL [0048] (shown below). Liao teaches this stacked OLED results in an improved luminance and efficiency for a multicolored OLED [0005].
PNG
media_image9.png
319
331
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the OLED device taught by Jin as OLED units in a stacked OLED taught by Liao, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Jin and Liao according to known methods to yield predictable results of a stacked OLED device with the improved luminance and efficiency [0005], as taught by Liao. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
The modified stacked OLED as described above will hereafter be referred to as “modified Liao OLED”.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Liao OLED reads on Applicants’ limitations since it is a multicolor OLED (light-emitting layers emitting different wavelengths) wherein the first and second organic molecule layers are described by Jin 2 (shown below),
PNG
media_image10.png
111
139
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein:
R0 is selected from one of C atom and phenyl group,
R1–R3 are each independently selected from CF3, F, CN, NO2, Cl, Br, and I.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a C atom as R0 with F as R1–R3 in Jin 2 for the first organic molecule layer and I as R1–R3 in Jin 2 for the second organic molecule layer, because it would have been choosing between a phenyl group or a C atom for R0 and CF3, F, CN, NO2, Cl, Br, or I for R1–R3, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the organic layer bonded to an inorganic hole-injection layer of the OLED device of Jin and possessing the surface work function benefits which thereby increase the EQE and brightness of an OLED, taught by Jin [0105]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds represented by Jin 2 having the benefits taught by Jin in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
A stacked OLED device as described above with a first organic molecule layer and a second organic molecule layer as modified above read on Applicants’ limitation of claim 16 since the second organic molecule layer has a carboxyl group to bond to the inorganic hole-transport material. Also, the second organic molecule layer has a smaller dipole moment than the first organic molecule layer since it is functionalized with I, which has a smaller electronegativity in comparison to F.
Regarding Claim 17 and 18, modified Liao OLED reads on Applicants’ limitations since the OLED units used to comprise the stacked OLED have anodes made of the same material (ITO [0101]) and cathodes made of the same material (Ag [0101]). Additionally, the third functional layer as taught by Jin comprises an electron transport layer and an electron injection layer [0077].
Claims 13, 41, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0234100 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 21, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (Pub. No.: JP 2019/153710 A, hereafter Hashimoto. An English translation is included within this office action).
Jin teaches an anode, a first functional layer, a second functional layer, a light emitting layer, a third functional layer, and a cathode. The first functional layer is divided into two layers: a nickel oxide layer, and an organic molecule layer treated onto the nickel oxide layer [0101] (shown below in Fig. 4 of Jin). Jin further teaches that the nickel oxide film layer may be from 1 nm to 1000 nm [0067].
PNG
media_image5.png
628
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Jin does not teach the thickness of the organic molecule layer or the second functional layer (hole-transport layer).
Hashimoto teaches a hole-transport layer 23, and a hole-injection layer 22 consisting of a metal oxide layer 22A and an organic matter layer 22B laminated on a metal oxide layer 22A [0037] [0043]. Hashimoto further teaches in one embodiment a metal oxide layer 22A between 5–20 nm, an organic matter layer 22B between 0–25 nm, and a hole-transport layer 23 between 20–30 nm [See Figure 6 of Hashimoto].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layer thicknesses taught by Hashimoto on the layers taught by Jin, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Hashimoto and Jin according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED device possessing the surface work function benefits which thereby increase the EQE and brightness of an OLED, taught by Jin [0105]. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Hereafter, this modified version of the OLED taught by Jin will be called “modified Hashimoto OLED”.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Hashimoto OLED reads on Applicants’ limitation since the organic molecule layer is between 0–25 nm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 41, modified Hashimoto OLED reads on Applicants’ limitation since the organic molecule layer is between 0–25 nm and the hole-transport layer is between 20–30 nm.
Hashimoto teaches that the thicknesses of the organic molecule layer and the hole-transport layer affect the luminous efficiency of an OLED [0045], [0067], and [0069]. Notably, Hashimoto teaches an optimal luminous efficiency is achieved when the organic molecule layer is between 10–15 nm [See Figure 10C of Hashimoto] and the hole-transport layer is between 20–30 nm [See Figure 7 of Hashimoto]. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an organic molecule layer that is thinner than the hole-transport layer. The motivation for doing so would be to optimize the luminous efficiency of an OLED.
Additionally, it would be a decision of having the organic molecule layer be thinner, thicker, or the same thickness as the hole-transport layer, which is a choice between a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of these layers with a reasonable expectation of success based on the increased luminous efficiency taught by Hashimoto. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding Claim 44, modified Hashimoto OLED reads on Applicants’ limitation since the organic molecule layer is between 0–25 nm and the nickel oxide layer is between 5–20 nm.
Hashimoto teaches that the thickness of the organic molecule layer affects the luminous efficiency of an OLED [0067], and [0069]. Hashimoto further teaches that if a thicker metal oxide film is formed, then stable hole injection efficiency can be expected [0039]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an organic molecule layer that is thinner than the hole-injection layer. The motivation for doing so would be to tune the thickness of the organic molecule layer and the hole-injection layer to optimize the luminous efficiency and hole injection efficiency of an OLED.
Additionally, it would be a decision of having the organic molecule layer be thinner, thicker, or the same thickness as the hole-injection layer, which is a choice between a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of these layers with a reasonable expectation of success based on the increased luminous efficiency and hole injection efficiency taught by Hashimoto. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding Claim 45, modified Hashimoto OLED reads on Applicants’ limitation since the organic molecule layer is between 0–25 nm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789