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 § 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 3, 5-6, 8-13 and 16-20 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 3, 5-6, 11 and 19-20 recite chemical groups that are substituted but the metes and bounds of the substituents are not provided anywhere in the application. The term is therefore ambiguous. Claim 8 recites “a plurality of light-emitting devices” and then recites “each of at least one light-emitting device”, which has a different scope. The claim is therefore inconsistent. Claim 9 refers to the device of claim 8 and adds a light extraction layer disposed on a side of the second electrode away from the substrate, but it also recites that the light extraction layer has a refractive index higher than that “of a material layer that is adjacent to the light extraction layer and located on a side of the light extraction layer proximate to the second electrode.” Since the claim does not actually state that the device has this material layer that is adjacent to the light extraction layer, it is unclear if said layer must be present or the comparison of the refractive indices is only applicable when said layer is present. The other claims are indefinite by dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation recited in claim 14 is a repetition of the same limitation already set forth in claim 1. Claim 14 does not alter claim 1 in any way.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/138877 A1 to Song et al. in view of US 2020/0266379 A1 to Li et al. and US 2022/0209132 A1 to Liu et al. (this document is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)).
Regarding claim 1, Song et al. discloses an OLED having the configuration of anode/HIL/HTL/EBL/EML/HBL/ETL/EIL/cathode (see Fig. 3) wherein the EML emits blue light (p. 8) and comprises an anthracene host material and a boron-based dopant. In example 1 (p. 54), the device has a capping layer (CPL) disposed on the outer surface of the cathode, the EML comprises host 1 and dopant 56, and the EBL comprises compound H21,
PNG
media_image1.png
218
130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
210
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
180
210
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Host 1 Dopant 56 H21 .
Song et al. fails to teach LUMO(EBL) – LUMO (Host) ≥ 0.3 eV, or that the hole mobility of the EBL is equal to or greater than the electron mobility of the ETL, or that the boron-based dopant has a molecular ellipticity greater than 1.8. However, the following are noted. First, in the claimed device, the dopant having a molecular symmetry that gives rise to an ellipticity greater than 1.8 is exemplified by the compound
PNG
media_image4.png
166
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which has essentially the same symmetry as the dopant 56 in the prior art device. Therefore, the dopant 56 must have an ellipticity greater than 1.8. Second, Li et al. discloses an OLED having a general structure of anode/HTL/EBL/EML/ETL/cathode wherein it is required that LUMO(EBL) – LUMO (Host) ≥ 0.4 eV in order to effectively block the transport of electrons toward the anode (see [0037]). Similar to the device disclosed by Song et al., the EBL comprises an aromatic amine derivative [0009]. Third, Liu et al. discloses that the hole mobility of the material in the HTL is normally two orders of magnitude higher than the electron mobility of the material in the ETL. This difference results in a significant reduction of device efficiency because it causes some holes to pass through the emitting layer and recombine with the electrons at the interface of the ETL and the EML or even inside the ETL. To mitigate the problem, a hole blocking layer (HBL) is usually used (see [0006]). In view of these teachings and since the device disclosed by Song et al. has a HBL, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the device disclosed by Song et al. to have LUMO(EBL) – LUMO (Host) ≥ 0.4 eV wherein the hole mobility of the material in the EBL, which is in effect a hole transport layer, is an order of magnitude higher than the electron mobility of the material in the ETL so as to ensure an optimum efficiency. Claim 1 is therefore unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) & (C). So are claims 5-6 and 14.
Claim 3 is obvious because Song et al. teaches that the material for the EBL includes such compounds as H60 and H63,
PNG
media_image5.png
204
220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
198
216
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see page 28). The features of claim 8 can be seen from figure 5 and the apparatus of claim 13 is disclosed in the form of, for example, a flat display device, on page 1.
Claims 9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/138877 A1 to Song et al. in view of US 2020/0266379 A1 to Li et al. and US 2022/0209132 A1 to Liu et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US2020/0006439 A1 to Sun et al.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the device of claim 8 is unpatentable as explained above. While Song et al. teaches the use of a capping layer that is disposed on the cathode, it fails to provide further information about the CPL. However, Sun et al. discloses that the CPL should be made of a material that has a higher refractive index than that of the cathode so that the angle of the emitted light is closer to the normal direction and the overall efficiency can be improved as a result [0085]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the device taught by Song et al. so that the CPL has a higher refractive index than the cathode and any material layer between the cathode and the CPL in order to improve the overall light output.
The features of claim 17 are disclosed by Song et al. in paragraph [48].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 7 and 15 are 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.
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is not on obvious reason for a POSITA to modify the prior art device cited above to arrive at the claimed device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762