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 .
Drawings
The prior drawing objections are withdrawn in view of the amended reference characters in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior §112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz et al. (US 6392250 B1; hereinafter referred to as “Aziz”) in view of Shitagaki et al. (US PGPub 20090102368 A1, newly cited; hereinafter referred to as “Shitagaki”).
Re claim 1: Aziz teaches a light emitting device comprising: an anode (column 5: line 14, fig. 2: element 34); an emission layer located on a side of the anode (column 5: lines 16-18, column 5: lines 36-37, fig. 2: element 38); and a hole auxiliary layer located between the anode and the emission layer (column 5: line 14-15, column 6: lines 14-15, fig. 2: element 36, fig. 3: element 136); wherein at least one of the emission layer and the hole auxiliary layer comprises a functional material (column 10: lines 63-64); wherein the functional material comprises a compound with a planar configuration (column 11: lines 1-16). Aziz teaches a family of quinacridone dopant compounds having a planar main structure and being composed of phenyl amine groups with certain R sites being hydrogen, alkyl, or aryl groups (column 11: lines 1-16). Aziz is silent as to the specific compound from this family to be used as a dopant, and thus is silent as to the functional material comprising any of alkoxy-substituted diphenylamine compounds and coupled triphenylamine compounds or a combination of alkoxy-substituted diphenylamine compounds and coupled triphenylamine compounds.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shitagaki teaches a light emitting device (para. 9) comprising an emission layer including a functional dopant material comprising a compound with a planar configuration, and the functional material comprises any of alkoxy-substituted diphenylamine compounds and coupled triphenylamine compounds (para. 257: structure formula of DPQd given at end of paragraph; para. 273| Shitagaki teaches a functional dopant material of N,N'-diphenylquinacridone (DPQd) used in an emission layer; DPQd is a coupled triphenylamine compound and is a quinacridone family compound with a planar main structure), and the functional material is configured to be crystallizable at a preset temperature and improve hole injection property (in regards to the functional material, the claimed and prior art structures are substantially identical, and therefore, as per MPEP 2112.01, the claimed properties of crystallizing at a specific temperature and improving hole injection are assumed to be present; the following is a quotation of an appropriate section of MPEP 2112.01(I): “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”). Shitagaki further teaches a benefit of using DPQd as a functional dopant material in the emission layer of a light emitting device is that due to its chemical stability, the operational lifetime of the light emitting device is extended (para. 153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Aziz and Shitagaki to enable using the functional dopant material of Shitagaki as the quinacridone compound in the emission layer of the light emitting device of Aziz for the benefit of simplifying manufacturing by using a known emission layer dopant material from the quinacridone family for extending the operational lifetime of the light emitting device.
Re claim 2: Aziz in view of Shitagaki teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, and claim 2 does not provide additional structure. With regard to claim 2, the claimed and prior art structures are substantially identical, and therefore, as per MPEP 2112.01, the following claimed property of the temperature of crystallization is presumed to be inherent: wherein the preset temperature is greater than or equal to 105⁰C.
Re claim 3: Aziz in view of Shitagaki teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, and claim 3 does not provide additional structure. With regard to claim 3, the claimed and prior art structures are substantially identical, and therefore, as per MPEP 2112.01, the following claimed property is presumed to be inherent: wherein a glass transition temperature of the function material is less than 105⁰C.
Re claim 4: Aziz in view of Shitagaki teaches the light emitting device of claim 1 wherein a material of the emission layer comprises the functional material (Aziz - column 10: lines 63-64, column 10: line 64-column 11: line 16), a guest material (Aziz - column 10: lines 63-64, column 10: line 64-column 11: line 63) and at least one host material (Aziz - abstract: sentence 1, column 5: lines 36-37). Aziz teaches that the emission layer contains at least one dopant material (Aziz - column 10: lines 63-64), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this teaching allows for the functional material as one dopant and a guest material as another dopant.
Re claim 5: Aziz in view of Shitagaki teaches the light emitting device according to claim 4, wherein a proportion of the functional material in the material of the emission layer is in a range of 0.1% to 0.2% (Aziz - column 12: lines 16-17| Aziz specifically discloses a proportion of the functional material in the material of emission layer is in the range of 0.1% to 2%, and as per MPEP 2144.05(i), "in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
Re claim 15: Aziz in view of Shitagaki teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the light emitting device further comprises a cathode (Aziz - column 5: line 20, fig. 2: element 42), and the cathode is located on a side of the emission layer facing away from the hole auxiliary layer (Aziz - column 5: lines 14-21, fig. 2: element 42).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz in view of Shitagaki as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Asari et al. (US 8795852 B2; hereinafter referred to as “Asari”).
Re claim 6: Aziz in view of Shitagaki teaches the light emitting device of claim 4, wherein the material of the emission layer comprises at least two host materials (Aziz - abstract: sentence 1). Aziz fails to teach the absolute value of a difference of highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy values of any two host materials is less than or equal to 0.1 eV.
In a similar field of endeavor, Asari teaches an emission layer (column 4: line 51, fig. 1: element 5) wherein the material of the emission layer comprises at least two host materials (abstract: sentence 3), absolute value of a difference of highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy values of any two host materials is less than or equal to 0.1 eV (abstract: sentence 3, column 5: lines 27-31). Asari further teaches that a benefit of having a difference of not more than 0.1 eV between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy levels of the combined host materials in the emission layer is to prevent the degradation of device characteristics, such as to prevent causing large changes in the injected amount of electrical charge carriers (column 2: lines 24-34, column 5: lines 27-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed
invention to combine the teachings of Asari with the teachings of the combination of Aziz and Shitagaki to enable using host materials with a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level difference of not more than 0.1 eV as taught by Asari in the light emitting device of the combination of Aziz and Shitagaki, for the benefit of preventing a degradation of device characteristics, such as to prevent
causing large changes in the injected amount of charge carriers.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz.
Re claim 1 (second mapping): Aziz teaches a light emitting device comprising: an anode (column 5: line 14, fig. 2: element 34); an emission layer located on a side of the anode (column 5: lines 16-18, column 5: lines 36-37, fig. 2: element 38); and a hole auxiliary layer located between the anode and the emission layer (column 5: lines 14-15, column 6: lines 14-15, fig. 2: element 36, fig. 3: element 136); wherein at least one of the emission layer and the hole auxiliary layer comprises a functional material (column 10: lines 63-64; column 8: lines 19-21|functional material encompasses both the dopant material and the hole transport material in the mixed emission layer); wherein the functional material comprises a compound with a planar configuration (column 11: lines 40-41; column 10: lines 63-64|functional material comprises 1,4-diphenylbutadiene as the dopant in the mixed emission layer), and the functional material comprises any of alkoxy-substituted diphenylamine compounds and coupled triphenylamine compounds (column 8: lines 33-40; column 8: lines 19-21|functional material comprises the coupled triphenylamine compound, 1,1-bis(4-di-p-tolylaminophenyl)-4-phenyl cyclohexane, as the hole transporting material in mixed emission layer), or a combination of alkoxy-substituted diphenylamine compounds and coupled triphenylamine compounds; and the functional material is configured to be crystallizable at a preset temperature and improve hole injection property (in regards to the functional material, the claimed and prior art structures are substantially identical, and therefore, as per MPEP 2112.01, the claimed properties of crystallizing at a specific temperature and improving hole injection are assumed to be present; the following is a quotation of an appropriate section of MPEP 2112.01(I): “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”).
Re claim 14: Aziz teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the functional material further comprises butadiene compounds (column 11: lines 40-41; column 10: lines 63-64|functional material comprises 1,4-diphenylbutadiene as the dopant of the mixed emission layer).
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 DEVIN GOODLING whose telephone number is (571)272-2552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights