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 .
The office acknowledges the receipt of applicants’ response to the restriction requirement dated 12/30/2025.
Elected Species
PNG
media_image1.png
700
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As no claims where specifically drawn to applicants’ elected species in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. Claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of the elected species would be allowable. Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species.
Examinable Species
The examinable species is derived from Formula 1 (page 5):
PNG
media_image2.png
260
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A specfic example is represented by P-24 (page 10):
PNG
media_image3.png
268
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examinable species is best viewed as a modification of P-24 where a single deuterium has been added to the dibenzofuran group resulting in 76% deuteration:
PNG
media_image4.png
268
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
P-24-D reads on Claims 1 and 10-18. Claims 2-9 are withdrawn as not reading on the examinable species or part of the non-elected invention.
P-24-D reads on applicants’ Formula A wherein Ar1 = deuterated dibenzofuran; L1 = deuterated biphenylene; L2 and L3 = single bond; Ar2 and Ar3 = deuterated phenyl.
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.
Claims, 1, 10-13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0226585 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park teaches compounds capable of lowering a driving voltage, enhancing light emitting efficiency and thermal resistance, and improving lifespan and color purity of the element, an organic element using the same, and an electric device (abstract). The compounds taught have efficient electron blocking ability and hole transport ability by using the compound substituted with deuterium, and allowing to lower a driving voltage, to improve luminous efficiency, to have a high heat-resistance, and to improve color purity and lifetime of the element, an organic electric element comprising the same, and an electronic device (paragraph 22).
Park also cites that it is known in the art from previous studies that when a compound is substituted with deuterium, the energy of the zero point energy, that is, the bottom state is lowered and the molecular hardcore volume becomes smaller as the bond length of carbon and deuterium becomes shorter than the bond length of carbon and hydrogen. Thus, the electron polarizability can be reduced, and the thin film volume can be increased by weakening the intermolecular interaction (J. Polym. Sci. 1980, 18, 853). It is considered that these characteristics can produce an effect of lowering the crystallinity of the thin film, that is, an amorphous state and, in general, it is very effective to realize the necessary amorphous state in order to improve lifetime and driving characteristics of an organic electroluminescent device (Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 953).
The office regards the above as Park using various compounds with different levels of deuterium incorporation with the objective of lower driving voltage, to improve luminous efficiency, to have a high heat-resistance, and to improve color purity and lifetime an OLED. Importantly, Park exemplified compounds are arylamines and they all show partial deuterium incorporation (paragraph 85). Therefore, the office views the level of deuteration as a result effective variable requiring optimizing to achieve the most demonstrative effect with respect to lower driving voltage, to improve luminous efficiency, to have a high heat-resistance, and to improve color purity and lifetime an OLED.
Park also notes that many studies have not been conducted on a hole transporting material which can lower the driving voltage and improve the hole transfer ability by substituting with deuterium, and accordingly, it is strongly required to develop materials of the emission-auxiliary layer and the hole transport layer (paragraph 21).
Applicant set forth generic Formula A with a deuterium incorporation level of 74-98%. The office notes that Park teaches various arylamine hole transporting compounds also incorporating deuterium over a range. Of note, Park teaches P-24 (above) which shows a deuteration level of 72%. P-24 is derived from generic Formula 1 (above). Formula 1shows R1 and R2 bonded to the dibenzofuran group include deuterium as an option (paragraph 72) wherein the coefficients m and n allow for partial to full deuteration (paragraphs 73-74). The office also note Park’s P-22 shows deuterium bonded to a dibenzofuran group.
As the effect of deuterium incorporation was known in the art prior to Park and Park’s basis of experimentation is using deuterium to enhance OLED performance, it would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention, given that Park did not set an upper limit to the level of deuteration, to test compounds having higher levels of deuteration to the further optimize the enhancement of OLED performance which would have included deuterium levels beyond 72% such as P-24-D with 76% deuteration, which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 1).
Regarding Claims 10-11, 13, Park teaches an OLED containing an anode/hole injection layer/hole transport layer/light emitting layer/hole blocking layer/electron transport layer/ electron injection layer/cathode (paragraphs 179-180). The hole transport layer contains P-1 a derivative of generic Formula 1. The office takes the position that as P-24-D was discussed above it also can be used a hole transport material in the OLED of Park (per claims 10-11, 13).
Regarding Claim 12, Park also teaches an OLED comprising an emission-auxiliary layer containing contains P-1 a derivative of generic Formula 1. The office takes the position that as P-24-D was discussed above it also can be used in the emission-auxiliary layer (per claim 12).
Regarding Claims 17-18, Park teaches an electronic device (above OLED) including a display device which includes the above described organic electric device, and a control unit for controlling the display device (paragraph 68) (per claims 17-18).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0226585 A1) in view of Hsu (US 2010/0276677).
Regarding Claim 14, Park teach the OLED of claim 10 but fails to mention the efficiency enhancing layer.
Hsu teaches a light enhance layer has higher refractive index, between 2 and 3, than that of the top substrates, thereby efficiently improving the luminance intensity of the OLED (abstract).
The office interprets the above as a generic teaching showing a suitable incentive to modify an OLED by adding a light enhance layer to efficiently improve the luminance intensity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have modified the OLED of Park which would have included adding an efficiency enhancing layer since Hsu teaching said layer efficiently improves the luminance intensity, absent unexpected results (per claim 11).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2018/0226585 A1) in view of Liao (US 2003/0170491).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Park teaches the OLED of claim 10 but fails to mention a stacked configuration.
Liao teaches that a stacked organic light emitting device provides significantly improved luminance efficiency over the conventional non-stacked organic light emitting device (paragraph 27). The device configuration includes a stacked organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, at least two organic electroluminescent units disposed between the anode and the cathode, and a doped organic connector (charge generation layer) disposed between each adjacent organic electroluminescent unit (abstract).
The office interprets the above as a clear indication that the prior art had an appreciation for the advantages of a stacked organic light emitting device over a conventional non-stacked organic light emitting device, namely improved luminance efficiency. Moreover, organic connector comprises at least one n-type doped organic layer or one p-type doped organic layer, or combinations of layers thereof which is viewed as encompassing organic connector containing a n-type doped organic layer and a p-type doped organic layer.
With the expectation of improving device performance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have modified the conventional non-stacked organic light emitting device of Park which would have included adding additional organic light emitting unit(s) to form a stacked organic light emitting device configuration since Liao teaches that a stacked organic light emitting device is a means to improve luminance efficiency over the conventional non-stacked organic light emitting device, absent unexpected results (per claims 15-16).
Conclusion
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