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 Objections
Claims 1, 4-6, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4-6, and 15 recite the substituents are selected from halogen, F, Cl, etc. As F and Cl are both halogens, the term “halogen” is inclusive of F and Cl and thus it is recommended for ease of reading to delete F and Cl from the list of possible substituents.
Claim 6 does not end in a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 7 recite “at least one from A2, A4, and A6 is selected from” specific groups. Similarly, claim 8 recites “at least one from A2, A4, and A6 is fully substituted”. Given that A2, A4, and A6 appear in both formula (I) and formula (II), it is unclear whether “at least one from A2, A4, and A6” means 1) at least one from A2, A4, and A6 in formula (I) and at least one from A2, A4, and A6 in formula (II); or 2) at least one from A2, A4, and A6 in either formula (I) or formula (II). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as at least one from A2, A4, and A6 in either formula (I) or formula (II).
Claim 6 recites “at least one from A1, A3, and A5 is selected from” specific groups. Similarly, claim 9 recites “at least one from A1, A3, and A5 is CN”. Given that A1, A3, and A5 appear in both formula (I) and formula (II), it is unclear whether “at least one from A1, A3, and A5” means 1) at least one from A1, A3, and A5 in formula (I) and at least one from A1, A3, and A5 in formula (II); or 2) at least one from A1, A3, and A5 in either formula (I) or formula (II). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as at least one from A1, A3, and A5 in either formula (I) or formula (II).
The term “substantially” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, it is unclear what a substantially covalent matrix compound is. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be met if the at least one organic semiconductor layer comprises a covalent matrix compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2015/198073) in view of Hummert (US 2017/0373251 A1), as evidenced by Li (US 2020/0111960 A1) and LibreTexts (“22.3: Polymers.” Chemistry LibreTexts, 16 July 2022).
Regarding claims 1, 3-10, 12-13, and 15, Thomas teaches an improved OLED comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a light-emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the hole injection layer is an organic semiconductor doped with a first p-dopant and a second p-dopant that is different from the first p-dopant (bottom of page 2 and second half of page 4). Thomas teaches a specific example in Device Example B wherein the hole injection layer is formed by Formulation B, wherein Formulation B is a semiconducting polymer 1 doped with first dopant B and second dopant B (beginning of page 25 and bottom of page 27). First dopant B is C60F36 and second dopant B is NDP-9 (Table 3 on page 24).
As evidenced by Li, NDP-9 has the structure below (see page 3 of Li), and thus reads on the claimed formula (I) wherein: A1, A3, and A5 are each CN and A2, A4, and A6 are each a C6 aryl substituted with F and CN (claims 4-9).
NDP-9:
PNG
media_image1.png
219
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first dopant B (C60F36) fails to read on the claimed formula (II). However, Thomas does not limit the structure of the first dopant. Rather. Thomas recites exemplary p-dopants for the first dopant generically include organic and inorganic p-dopants (bottom of page 5).
Hummert teaches a [3]-radialene p-dopant represented by formula (I) for use in a semiconducting layer of an OLED (¶ [0007] and [0016]). Hummert teaches the [3]-radialene p-dopant is thermally robust, retains good performance, enables adjusting the doping strength and volatility, enables their manufacturing with more robust quality and higher yield, and provides additional degrees of freedom for designers of electronic devices (¶ [0029] and [0037]-[0039]). Hummert teaches examples of the [3] radialene p-dopant including compound A1 (page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first dopant B (C60F36) in Thomas’ Device Example B with a [3]-radialene p-dopant represented by Hummert’s formula (I), based on the teaching of Hummert. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a p-dopant that is thermally robust, retains good performance, enables adjusting the doping strength and volatility, enables their manufacturing with more robust quality and higher yield, and provides additional degrees of freedom for designers of electronic devices, as taught by Hummert.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound A1, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable [3] radialene p-dopants taught by Hummert, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the p-dopant in the hole injection layer of the device of Thomas and possessing the benefits taught by Hummert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising [3] radialene p-dopants taught by Hummert and having the benefits taught by Hummert in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As shown by the structure below, compound A1 reads on the claimed formula (II) wherein: B1 is formula (IIIa); B2 is formula (IIIb); B3 is formula (IIIc); A1, A3, and A5 are each CN and A2, A4, and A6 are each a C6 aryl substituted with F and fully fluorinated C1 alkyl.
A1:
PNG
media_image2.png
243
227
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, compound A1 reads on the claimed formula (IIa) (claim 3).
Per claim 12, as discussed above, the hole injection layer includes a semiconductor polymer. Polymers are formed from covalent bonds, as evidenced by the first paragraph of LibreTexts, and thus are considered a covalent matrix compound.
Regarding claim 2, Thomas in view of Hummert teach the modified Device Example B including a hole injection layer comprising p-dopants NDP-9 and compound A1, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Thomas in view of Hummert fail to teach the modified Device Example B comprises an additional p-dopant. However, Thomas does teach an embodiment in which the organic semiconductor (the hole injection layer) may be doped with three or more different dopants, wherein examples of such dopants include p-dopants which may be organic or inorganic (page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include an additional p-dopant in the hole injection layer to arrive at an organic semiconductor doped with three dopants, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Thomas according to known methods to yield predictable results of an OLED, as taught by Thomas. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
While Thomas in view of Hummert fail to specifically teach the structure of the third p-dopant, as discussed above, Hummert teaches a [3]-radialene p-dopant represented by formula (I) is thermally robust, retains good performance, enables adjusting the doping strength and volatility, enables their manufacturing with more robust quality and higher yield, and provides additional degrees of freedom for designers of electronic devices (¶ [0029] and [0037]-[0039]). Hummert teaches examples of the [3] radialene p-dopant including compound A2 (page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a [3]-radialene p-dopant represented by Hummert’s formula (I) as the third p-dopant, based on the teaching of Hummert. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a p-dopant that is thermally robust, retains good performance, enables adjusting the doping strength and volatility, enables their manufacturing with more robust quality and higher yield, and provides additional degrees of freedom for designers of electronic devices, as taught by Hummert.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select compound A2, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable [3] radialene p-dopants taught by Hummert, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the third p-dopant in the hole injection layer of the device of Thomas in view of Hummert and possessing the benefits taught by Hummert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising [3] radialene p-dopants taught by Hummert and having the benefits taught by Hummert in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As shown by the structure below, compound A2 reads on the claimed formula (II) wherein: B1 is formula (IIIa); B2 is formula (IIIb); B3 is formula (IIIc); A1, A3, and A5 are each CN and A2, A4, and A6 are each a C6 aryl substituted with F and fully fluorinated C1 alkyl.
A2:
PNG
media_image3.png
244
238
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, While Thomas fails to specifically teach the modified Device Example B is a display, Thomas does teach the OLED may be used in an active matrix display or a passive matrix display (bottom of page 21).
Therefore, 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 modified Device Example B in an active matrix display or a passive matrix display, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Thomas according to known methods to yield predictable results, as taught by Thomas. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2015/198073) in view of Hummert (US 2017/0373251 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meng (US 2018/0069188 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas in view of Hummert teach the modified Device Example B including a hole injection layer comprising p-dopants NDP-9 and compound A1, and a light-emitting layer, as described above with respect to claim 1.
Thomas in view of Hummert fail to specifically teach the device comprises two light-emitting layer and an additional layer therebetween.
Meng teaches an organic light-emitting device having higher luminous efficiency by including a first electrode 110, a first light-emitting layer 120, a first low work function layer 131, a second low work function layer 132, a conductive etching-resistant layer 133, a first hole-injection layer 134, a second light-emitting layer 140, and a second electrode 150, as shown in Fig. 1 (¶ [0004] and [0027]-[0028]).
Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
500
827
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include in the modified Device Example B a first light-emitting layer, a first low work function layer, a second low work function layer, and a conductive etching-resistant layer between the anode and the hole injection layer of modified Device Example B, to arrive at a device having the structure of Meng, based on the teaching of Meng. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with higher luminous efficiency, as taught by Meng.
The resulting modified Device Example B includes two light-emitting layers with a hole injection layer therebetween, wherein the hole injection layer includes the p-dopants NDP-9 and compound A1.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 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 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786