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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui et al. (US 2020/0062778).
Claims 1-13: Device examples 7.1 and 7.2 of Cui et al. are drawn to a light-emitting device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer (compound EB2), an emission layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0294-0295 and Table 7). Compound EB2 has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
136
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as taught on page 125. As applied to Formula 1, this compound has all rings CY1-CY4 equal to unsubstituted benzene rings, n1 equal 0, a5 and a6 equal to zero, b5 and b6 equal to 1, and R5 and R6 equal to biphenyl. The compound employed in device example 1 as the electron blocking layer is the same compound as compound 1-14 of claim 11. All device and structural limitations of claims 1-9 and 11-13 are anticipated by device example 1 of Cui et al. Further, because Cui et al. exemplifies one of Applicants most preferred electron blocking compounds, it would be expected that the compound taught by Cui et al. would have a hole mobility within the 0.01 to 0.1 cm2/V•s as required by claim 9.
Claim 18: The device prepared in example 1 of Cui et al. is in itself an electronic apparatus thereby anticipating claim 18.
Claims 1-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US 2014/0312331) as evidenced by Kwon et al. (US 2023/0320211).
Claims 1-10 and 12-14: Inoue et al. teaches biscarbazole derivatives which are employed in organic electroluminescent devices. Example 2-1 of Inoue et al. teaches preparing a light-emitting device which comprises an anode, a hole injection layer, a first hole transport material having a thickness of 85 nm, a second hole transporting material having a thickness of 10 nm which acts as an electron blocking layer1, an emission layer which comprises a blue host and a blue dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0304-0307). Example 2-1 of Inoue et al. anticipates all of the device limitations of claims 1 and 12-14. Additionally, compound 1 which serves as the electron blocking layer anticipates all of the structural limitations of claims 1-9. Compound 1 has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
272
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. As applied to Formula 1, compound 1 has all CY1 through CY4 equal to unsubstituted benzene rings, n1 equal to zero, a5 equal to 1, a6 equal to zero, b5 equal to 1, b6 equal to 1, L5 equal to p-phenylene, R5 equal to an unsubstituted dibenzofuran group, and R6 equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group. Compound 1 also anticipates all of the structural limitations of claims 2-9. While Inoue et al. does not explicitly teach that compound 1 has a hole mobility which satisfies claim 10, because compound 1 satisfies all of the structural limitations of claim 1, it would be expected that compound 1 would also satisfy the hole mobility requirements of claim 10. A chemical compound and its properties are inseparable.
Claim 11: For claim 11, comparative example 1-2 of Inoue et al. is relied upon. Device example 1-2 of Inoue et al. differs from example 1-1 of Inoue et al. only in the second hole transporting/electron blocking material. Comparative example 1-2 of Inoue et al. employs compound B as the second hole transport material instead of compound 1, which is described above. Compound B of Inoue et al. has the same structure as compound 1-8 of claim 11, thereby anticipating claim 11.
Claim 18: The device prepared in example 2-1 of Inoue et al. is in itself an electronic apparatus thereby anticipating claim 18.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0313096).
Claims 1-9 and 12-14: Example 1 of Kim et al. is drawn to an organic light-emitting device comprising a substrate, an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer consisting of TrisPCz, an emission layer comprising a blue host and a blue dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (paragraphs 0476-0479 and Table 2). The chromaticity coordinates CIEx,y of 0.15 and 0.18, respectively, mean that the device emits blue light. The structure of TrisPCz is
PNG
media_image3.png
180
250
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as shown on page 72. As applied to Formula 1, this compound has rings CY1 through CY4 equal to benzene, n1 equal to zero, c1, c2, and c3 equal to zero, c4 equal to 1, a4 equal to zero, b4 equal to 1, R4 equal to an N-phenylcarbazolyl group, a5 and a6 equal to zero, b5 and b6 equal to 1, and R5 and R6 equal to an unsubstituted phenyl group. This compound anticipates the structural limitations of claims 1-9. Additionally, device example 1 anticipates the device limitations of claims 1 and 12-14.
Claim 10: While Kim et al. does not explicitly teach that TrisPCz has a hole mobility which satisfies claim 10, one having ordinary skill in the art would have expected that compound TrisPCz would inherently satisfy the hole mobility requirements of claim 10 since it satisfies all of the structural limitations of Formula 1 as claimed. A chemical compound and its properties are inseparable.
Claim 18: The device prepared in example 1 of Kim et al. is in itself an electronic apparatus thereby anticipating claim 18.
Claim 19: Kim et al. explicitly teaches that the electronic apparatus may include the light-emitting device and a thin-film transistor which is electrically connected to one of a source electrode and a drain electrode of the thin-film transistor (paragraph 0010 and claim 20), thereby anticipating claim 19.
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 of this title, 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.
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui et al. (US 2020/0062778) further in view of Forrest et al.
Cui et al. teaches a light-emitting device which satisfies claim 1, as described above. While Cui et al. does not explicitly teach that the light-emitting device comprises two or more emission units which are separated by a charge generation layer as required by claim 15, Cui et al. does teach that the light-emitting devices taught therein may be employed in tandem OLEDs (paragraphs 0013 and 0311). A stack is defined by the vertical integration of multipole electroluminescent units where each electroluminescent unit comprises at least one emission layer. Therefore, the teaching in paragraph 0311 that stacked OLEDs may be prepared which comprises the light-emitting layers taught therein necessarily requires two or more emission layers. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have therefore been motivated to employ the device architectures as taught by Cui et al. in a stacked OLED. Forrest et al. represents one of many prior art teachings which are directed to stacked/tandem OLEDs which are configured to emit white light. Cui et al. and Forrest et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of organic electroluminescent devices. Forrest et al. teaches that stacked white OLEDs have a plurality of light-emitting elements which emit red, green, and blue light (abstract). Forrest et al. further teaches that each light emitting unit is separated by a charge generation layer. In Figure 1 the device is shown to have three emission elements and two charge generation units. Given that Cui et al. is aware that stacked OLEDs may be prepared from the green light-emitting units taught therein, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the green light-emitting units taught by Cui et al. into the white light-emitting OLEDs taught by Forrest et al. One would have a reasonable expectation that the green emission unit of Cui et al. would serve as the green emitting unit in a white-light-emitting device and the motivation to prepare such a device is to allow for white-light-emission. The devices taught by Forrest et al. would also necessarily have a red and a blue emission unit so as to achieve white light emission, thereby satisfying claims 15-17.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0313096) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0073247) as applied to claims 1 and 18.
Kim et al. teaches an electronic apparatus which anticipates claim 18 as described above. While Kim et al. does not teach that the electronic apparatus further comprises one of the elements recited in claim 20, it is submitted that at least the inclusion of a color filter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the teachings of Yamazaki et al. Kim et al. and Yamazaki et al. are combinable as they are both from the same field of endeavor, namely, organic electroluminescent devices. Yamazaki et al. teaches that for light-emitting elements, the spectrum of light obtained is often relatively wide. As such, the quality of light emitted is inferior. By including a color filter, improvements in both the reliability and color purity of a device are realized (paragraph 0017). For these reasons, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a color filter to the electronic apparatus taught by Kim et al., thereby satisfying claim 20.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
1 As evidenced by paragraph 0205 of Kwon et al.