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 .
Claims 1-37 as filed on 03/16/2023 are pending.
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 31, 34, and 35 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 31, 34, and 35 each recite the word “substantially”, which is considered vague and indefinite. It is unclear if respective recited components are present or not. Clarification and/or correction are required.
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 1-12, 17-29, and 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2017/0244044 A1) in view of Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1).
Ikeda teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising an electron transport layer between a light emitting layer and a cathode (see abstract). The electron transport layer comprises a combination of two compounds (see abstract) per instant claims 1 and 37. A “first” compound is according to formula I and comprises a group HAr1 (see par. 14-18) per instant formula (2) compound of claims 1 and 37:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
226
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The “second” compound may contain an anthracene (formula IV), pyrene, phenanthrene, or chrysene (of aryls in formula V) (see par. 28-29); however, it is not seen where specific compounds of instant formula 1 are taught for the electron transport layer per instant claim 1 and 37 compositions. In analogous art, Arakane et al. teaches electron transport material may include anthracene derivatives (see Arakane par. 29), pyrene derivatives (see par. 44), or further aryl derivatives (see par. 47) as well as compounds like above Ikeda formula I (see par. 50). Hydrocarbon compounds taught by Arakane et al. as electron-transport material meets the requirements of instant formula (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used known electron transport material such as aromatic hydrocarbon compounds taught by Arakane et al. (per instant first component) in combination with electron transport material as taught by Ikeda et al. (per instant second component), because one would expect the Arakane et al. material to be useful for the same purpose as taught. It is obvious to combine material useful for the same purpose. Regarding claim 29, a mixture of an electron-transporting material as taught by Ikeda et al. and a material as taught by Arakane et al. would be expected to provide an electron transporting function to an electron transport layer in any mixed ratio as they are both useful for the same purpose. A mixed ratio would include the recited 30-70% by mass first component.
Arakane et al. material formulas discussed above (Arakane par. 29-49 and 71-108) meet the limitations of instant claims 2-12.
Regarding instant formula 2 compound 2, Ikeda formula 1 may be at least specific compounds shown in par. 135-136 per instant claims 17-28.
Regarding claim 31, the Ikeda et al. electron transporting layer may not include a metal in addition to the first and second compounds (see par. 181-183, 207). Regarding claim 32, the device layers are taught by Ikeda et al. (see par. 150-196). Regarding claim 33-35, the Ikeda et al. electron transport region may be configured multilayered (see par. 181-187). Regarding claim 36, the Ikeda et al. device structures may be used within electronic devices (see par. 196).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have combined compounds of the reference as described above where the composition for a device layer of a light emitting device would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device comprising materials within the disclosures of Ikeda et al. and Arakane et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2017/0244044 A1) in view of Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1), and in further view of Scheurich et al. (US 2012/0142855 A1).
Ikeda and Arakane are relied upon as set forth above.
While anthracene hydrocarbon derivatives are taught in Arakane (see par. 79) having Ar1 or Ar2 groups as “substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 50 nucleus carbon atoms” (see par. 80), it is not seen where a benzofluorene is specifically taught as one of the aryl groups, although the group is within the recited carbon number range. In analogous art, Scheurich et al. teaches an aromatic ring system of 5 to 40 aromatic ring atoms specifically includes “benzofluorene” group (see par. 28, 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a benzofluorene group as an aryl group upon an anthracene group of Arakane, because the group is within the general range of aryl groups taught as suitable by Arakane for forming an anthracene electron transport compound. One would expect to achieve an operational device including materials rendered obvious by Ikeda, Arakane, and Scheurich with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
With further respect to claim 15, Arakane teaches A1 and A2 groups as aromatic ring groups (see par. 79). With further respect to claim 16, the Arakane anthracene core (par. 79) reads upon the instant Ar601A group.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2017/0244044 A1) in view of Arakane et al. (US 2008/0193796 A1), and in further view of Vargas (US 2010/0253210 A1).
Ikeda and Arakane are relied upon as set forth above.
It is not seen where a metal-containing material as recited in claim 30 is added to an electron transport layer of Ikeda et al.; however, Vargas teaches, in analogous art, alkali metal or alkali metal compound may be part of an electron-transport layer (see claim 16 and par. 339). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place an alkali metal or alkali metal compound as taught by Vargas in an electron transport layer of a device according to Ikeda modified by Arakane, because the material is taught for the purpose of electron transportation. One would expect to achieve an operational device including materials rendered obvious by Ikeda, Arakane, and Vargas with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Note: The office recognizes there are comparative examples in the instant specification at page 154; however, these few examples are very narrow in scope and accordingly, are not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claimed subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim, K. J., Lee, H., Hwang, K. M., Park, B., Oh, H. Y., Kim, Y. K., & Kim, T. (2021). Universal electron transporting layers via mixing two homostructure molecules with different polarities for organic light-emitting diodes. Organic Electronics, 96, 106220.
The reference is considered relevant to the state of the art of electron transport material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Garrett whose telephone number is (571)272-1523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday (Eastern Time).
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.
/DAWN L GARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786