DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/033966 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 10-20, Park teaches an electric element (OLED, paragraphs 19-23) the first electrode(anode), 130: the hole injection layer (paragraph 0021) 140: the hole transport layer, 141: a buffer layer (paragraph 0022) 150: the emitting layer, 151: the emitting auxiliary layer [0023] 160: the electron transport layer, 170: the electron injection layer (paragraph0024) 180: the second electrode (cathode). Park teaches that a compound can be used in the hole transport layer (paragraph 157). The compound (an amine-based compound ) can be represented by 1-1 (page 5):
PNG
media_image1.png
246
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 1-1 shows X1 and X2 as CH; X3 and X4 as CZ3 and CZ4 as Z3 and Z4 are bonded together to form an naphthyl ring system; T2 = Formula 2 (L1 = single bond; Ar1 and Ar2 = phenyl); a1 = 0; a2 = 1; 1-1 lacks at least one of Z1 to Z4 represented by Formula 2.
Formula 1-1 is a derivative of generic Formula (1) (page 3):
PNG
media_image2.png
308
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formula 1-1 corresponds to generic Formula (1) all R(s) = H; Ar1 and Ar2 = phenyl; A = naphthyl.
.
PNG
media_image3.png
282
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1012
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The office notes that the R groups of generic Formula (1) are independently defined by a finite set of options which are viewed as functionally equivalent substituents which upon selection gives rise to obvious variants of generic Formula (1), absent unexpected results.
One such variant reading on applicants’ Formula 1 is best viewed as a modification of Park’s 1-1 wherein R1 is represented by -U-NRaRb (corresponding to applicants’ Formula 2), (above in paragraph 55); all remaining R(s) = H ;L’ as (U) is a single bond and Ra and Ra are aryl or heteroaryl groups; A = phenyl (corresponding to applicants’ A1) fused to A2 as phenyl (Formula 1A); applicants’ T2 is a diphenylamine group.
[The office notes the U is not defined in the reference which is viewed as a typo as L appears to be the correct symbol. For purposes of examination U will be treated as L’ (paragraph 55).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have made a variety of derivatives of Park’s generic Formula (1) by selecting various functional equivalent substituents which would have included the above variant which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 1, 10, 12).
The hole transport layer is viewed as an interlayer between the anode and the emitting layer(above) (per claims 2-4).
Park’s modified 1-1 shows A2 as phenyl (per claim 11)
Park’s modified 1-1 shows fused rings at Z3 and Z4; therefore Z1 or Z2 which corresponds to Park’s R1 can be the carbon bonded to the amino group Formula 2 with the remaining group as H (per claims 13-14)
Park’s modified 1-1 shows a1 = 0; a2 = 1 (per claim 15)
Park’s modified 1-1 shows one of R1 or R2 as Formula 2; all remaining R(s) = H (per claim 16)
Park’s modified 1-1 shows Formula 2 (L1 = single bond; Ar1 and Ar2 = phenyl), 2A-1 (per claims 17-19)
Park’s modified 1-1 reads on applicants’
PNG
media_image5.png
182
160
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein R1-R3 and R5 = H; T2 and T11 = Formula 2 (L1 = single bond; Ar1 and Ar2 = phenyl) (per claim 20).
Regarding Claim 7, Park a display device including the organic electric element (OLED); and a control part driving the display apparatus (paragraph 84) (per claim 7).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overpark (US 2018/033966 A1) in view of Seki (US 2013/0105785).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Park teaches the OLED used in a transistor (paragraph 85) but fails to mention the remaining components.
Seki teaches an image display apparatus including an organic light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor (TFT) device wherein the anode or a cathode of the organic light-emitting device is connected to a drain electrode or a source electrode of the TFT device. The thin-film transistor device serves as a device configured to apply an electrical current to the organic light-emitting device (paragraph 52). The organic light-emitting device also contains a color filter (paragraph 50).
As both Park and Seki teaches organic light-emitting devices and Seki teaches an organic light-emitting device configured in an electronic apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have used the organic light-emitting device of Park in known application areas which would have included in an electronic apparatus as taught by Seki which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 8-9).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overpark (US 2018/033966 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2016/0190450 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Park teaches the invention of claim 1, but fails to mention capping layers.
Hwang teaches an OLED with the following layering:
first capping layer, first electrode, organic layer, second electrode, and second capping layer, wherein layers of each structure are sequentially stacked in the stated order (paragraph 148). The first capping layer and the second capping layer may help improve external luminous efficiency based on the principle of constructive interference (paragraph 260).
The office interprets the above to mean that before the filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the OLED of Park by adding a capping layer outside of the first and second electrodes since Hwang teach this configuration may improve luminous efficiency, absent unexpected results (per claim 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to show:
a capping layer located outside the first electrode or located outside the second electrode, wherein the capping layer comprises the amine-based compound (per claim 5).
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 GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights