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 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) 1-10, 19, 22-28, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voges et al. (US 2015/0270506) (hereafter “Voges”) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0234098) (hereafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-10, 19, 22-28, 30, and 31, Voges teaches an electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a p-doped hole transport layer A’ (applicant’s fourth layer) (in contact with the anode and hole transport layer A (applicant’s first layer)) (claims 23-25), a hole transport layer A (applicant’s first layer) (in contact with the p-doped hole transport layer A’ (applicant’s fourth layer) and in contact with the p-doped hole transport layer B (applicant’s second layer)) (claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 22), a p-doped hole transport layer B (applicant’s second layer) (in contact with the hole transport layer A (applicant’s first layer) and the hole transport layer C (applicant’s third layer)) (claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10), a hole transport layer C (applicant’s third layer) (in contact with the hole transport layer A (applicant’s first layer) and the light emitting layer) (claims 8 and 10), a light emitting layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode (paragraphs [0127]-[0148], Tables 1 and 2).
Voges teaches that a p-doped hole transport layer A’ (applicant’s fourth layer) comprises the hole transport material (applicant’s first compound) of hole transport layer A (applicant’s first layer) and same p-dopant (applicant’s second compound) used in the p-doped hole transport layer B (applicant’s second layer) (claim 23) (paragraphs [0127]-[0148], Tables 1 and 2).
Voges teaches that hole transport material (applicant’s first compound) of hole transport layer A (applicant’s first layer) is a triaryl monoamine compound with a molecular weight between 650 and 1200 (paragraphs [0068], [0098], and [0127]-[0148], Tables 1 and 2) (claims 1, 3-6, 10, 26, and 27).
Voges teachers that the p-doped hole transport layer B (applicant’s second layer) comprises a p-dopant that comprises a fluorine atom, a cyano group, and a LUMO level lower than -5.0 eV,
PNG
media_image1.png
114
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F4TCNQ is taught by the applicant as a preferred fluorine compound to use as the second compound, so the compound would meets the applicant’s claimed energy limitations), and a hole transport material (applicant’s third compound) that is a triaryl monoamine that is different that the hole transport material (applicant’s first compound) used in the hole transport layer A (paragraphs [0127]-[0148], Tables 1 and 2) (claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 31). Voges teaches that the HOMO of the hole transport material (applicant’s third compound) of p-doped hole transport layer B is lower than the HOMO of the hole transport material (applicant’s first compound) of the hole transport layer A (paragraphs [0060] and [0126]-[0148], Tables 1 and 2) (claims 7 and 10).
Voges teaches that the hole transport layer C (applicant’s third layer) is composed of the same hole transport material as used in p-doped hole transport layer B (applicant’s second), which is a triaryl monoamine that is different that the hole transport material (applicant’s first compound) and the HOMO of the hole transport material (applicant’s third compound) of hole transport layer C is lower than the HOMO of the hole transport material (applicant’s first compound) of the hole transport layer A (paragraphs [0060] and [0126]-[0148], Tables 1 and 2) (claims 8-10).
Voges does not limit that hole transport materials used in the different hole transport layer, but prefers the use of triaryl monoamine compound (paragraph [0068] and [0098]).
Voges does not specifically teaches triaryl monoamine compounds, where the proportion of carbon atoms forming bonds by sp3 hybrid orbitals to the total number of carbon atoms is higher than or equal to 23% and lower than or equal to 55%.
Lee teaches an electroluminescent device comprising multiple hole transport layers (paragraph [0207]). Lee teaches using triarylamine monoamine compounds in hole transport layers of electroluminescent devices, where the different hole transport layers have different refractive indexes (paragraphs [0098] and [0206]). Lee teaches that the refractive index of the layer increase as the hole transport layer position gets closer to the light emitting layer (paragraphs [0206]-[0208]) (claim 10). Lee teaches that the triarylamine monoamine compounds can have the following structure,
PNG
media_image2.png
212
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
199
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
195
238
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
207
222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
207
179
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image7.png
211
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
are a few examples (paragraph [0098]) (claims 1-3, 6, 19, 28, and 30).
PNG
media_image7.png
211
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
is the same as applicant’s dchPAF (first compound) that meets the applicant’s claimed refractive index limitation, percentage of sp3 carbon atoms, glass transition temperature, integral value of signals lower than 4 ppm exceeds an integral value of signals 4 pm or higher in a result of 1H-NMR measurement (claims 1-3, 6, 19, 28, and 30). Lee teaches that having different refractive indexes in the hole transporting layer leads to improved emission efficiency of the device (paragraph [0206]).
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 Voges to use the hole transport materials of Lee,
PNG
media_image2.png
212
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
199
204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
195
238
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
207
222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
207
179
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image7.png
211
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and to choose the hole transport materials for the different hole transport layers of Voges, so the HOMO of the hole transport material (first compound) of hole transport layer A is higher than the HOMO of the hole transport material (third compound) of the p-doped hole transport layer B and the hole transport layer C (taught by Voges) and the refractive index of hole transport layer A is lower than the refractive index of the p-doped hole transport layer B and the hole transport layer C as taught by Lee. The motivation to use the compounds with different refractive indexes would have been to improve the efficiency of the device as taught by Lee.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwawaki et al. (US 2007/0228399) teaches an electroluminescent device comprising triaryl monoamine compounds that have t-butyl groups and where the proportion of carbon atoms forming bonds by sp3 hybrid orbitals to the total number of carbon atoms is higher than or equal to 23% and lower than or equal to 55%.
Do et al. (WO 2017/116168) teaches electroluminescent device where the hole transporting layer comprising compounds that are triaryl monoamine compounds that have cycloalkyl groups and where the proportion of carbon atoms forming bonds by sp3 hybrid orbitals to the total number of carbon atoms is higher than or equal to 23% and lower than or equal to 55%
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
Prosecution Insights