3DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 4 and 6 have been cancelled; Claims 1 and 17 have been amended; and claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
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, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Antoniadis et al. (USPN 5719467, hereinafter “Antoniadis”) in view of Tutt et al, (US 2011/0024770 A1, hereinafter “Tutt”), Steiger et al. (EP3410208 A1, however, its equivalent US PG PUB 2022/0376180 A1 is used for the rejection below, hereinafter “Steiger”), and Ogi et al. (USPN 5637440, hereinafter “Ogi”).
In regards to claim 1, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) light-emitting device, comprising:
a substrate (203);
a cathode (211) disposed on the substrate (203);
an anode (201) facing the cathode (211); and
an interlayer (205…209) comprising an emission layer (213),
wherein the interlayer (205 … 209) is located between the cathode (211) and the anode (201), and
wherein the light-emitting device further comprises a photoacid generator (See, for example, Col. 3 lines 35-40, “… camphor-sulfonic acid”).
Antoniadis is silent about
an interlayer disposed on the cathode, and an anode disposed on the interlayer,
wherein the interlayer comprises an emission layer.
Tutt while disclosing an LED teaches (See, for example, Fig. 3) an interlayer (230) disposed on the cathode (100), and an anode (160) disposed on the interlayer (230),
wherein the interlayer (230) comprises an emission layer (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the configuration of Tutt because this would help the device exhibit reduced air sensitivity during some of the process steps, as well as a better n-type semiconductor compatibility.
Antoniadis as modified above is silent about an electron transport region located between the cathode and the emission layer; the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer; and wherein the electron transport layer comprises a photoacid generator and a metal oxide.
Steiger while disclosing a light emitting device teaches (See, for example, Fig. 4) an electron transport region (2) located between the cathode (1) and the emission layer (3); the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer (2); and wherein the electron transport layer (2) comprises a photoacid generator and a metal oxide (See, for example, Pars [0049], [0050] and [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Antoniadis modified by Steiger because this would help enable the direct patterning of the metal oxide layers using precursors with a separate photo acid generator that would simplify the manufacturing process by eliminating the need for traditional photolithography processes that requires photoresist layers that incurs complexity and costs.
Antoniadis further fails to explicitly teach that wherein a weight ratio of the metal oxide to the photoacid generator is about 1000:1 to about 90:1.
Ogi while disclosing a composition forming metal oxide including a solution containing an acid generating agent teaches
a composition for forming a metal oxide thin film pattern which is a solution containing one or more hydrolytic metal compounds selected from the group consisting of hydrolytic organometallic compounds (e.g., metal alkoxide) and metal halides, and a water generating agent which frees water under the effect of irradiation with active rays (e.g., o-nitrobenzyl alcohol and 2-nitroethanol) and, as required, an acid generating agent which frees acid under the effect of irradiation with active rays is disclosed (See Abstract);
acid generating agents include: onium salts such as an iodonium salt and sulfonium salt; organic halides such as an halogen-containing benzene derivative, an halogen-containing alkane or cycloalkane, and an halogen-containing s-triazine or isocyanurate derivative; o- or p-nitrobenzylester; and an aromatic sulfonic ester or sulfonyl compound such as a benzene polysulfonic ester, bisallylsulfonyl diazomethane, and 2-phenylsulfonylacetophenone (See, Col. 4 line 24-39); and
Thereafter, a thin film pattern comprising a metal oxide of a desired composition is formed by converting the metal compounds in the film fully into metal oxides through heat treatment of the substrate. This heat treatment should preferably be carried out through sintering in an open air atmosphere at 300.degree. to 800.degree. C. (See, for example, Col. 6 lines 41-47).
As to the proportions:
the concentration of said hydrolytic metal compound in said composition is within a range of from 1 to 20 wt. % (See, for example, claim 2);
the concentration of said photosensitizer which forms an acid under irradiation with active rays in said composition is within a range of from 0.001 to 20 wt. % , or more preferably, 0.1 to 10 wt. % (See, for example, Claim 3 and Col. 4 line 67 thru col. 5 line 3); and
Table 1 and Table 3 report “concentration as converted into metal oxide” of 5% to 10% for the worked formulations:
Ogi metal oxide equivalent
Ogi acid generating agent
Metal oxide : acid generator
vs. claimed 1,000:1–90:1
10 wt%
0.001 wt% (broad lower limit)
10,000:1
above range
10 wt%
0.01 wt%
1,000:1
claimed upper endpoint
10 wt%
0.1 wt% (preferred lower limit)
100:01:00
inside the claimed range
5 wt%
0.05 wt%
100:01:00
inside the claimed range
5 wt%
0.056 wt%
90:01:00
claimed lower endpoint
10 wt%
10 wt% (preferred upper limit)
1:01
below range
10 wt% (Ex. 17/41)
0.5 wt%
20:01
below range
The disclosed ranges span roughly 10,000:1 down to 1:1, encompassing the claimed 1,000:1–90:1 in full. More usefully, Ogi's preferred lower endpoint of 0.1 wt% acid generating agent, taken with his own 10% metal-oxide-equivalent formulations, lands at 100:1, squarely inside the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the photoacid generator at a metal oxide to photoacid generator weight ratio of about 1000:1 to 90:1, because this would promote conversion of the precursor to the metal oxide while reducing the required radiation energy, and further teaches that a quantity below the prescribed range fails to produce a usable difference between exposed and non-exposed portions whereas a quantity above it denatures the surrounding film, such that the recited ratio amounts to no more than the optimization of a result-effective variable expressly recognized in Ogi.
In regards to claim 2, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) wherein the interlayer (205…209) further comprises a hole transport region (207) located between the emission layer (213) and the anode (201), the electron transport region (209) comprises a buffer layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron control layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof and the hole transport region (207) comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission auxiliary layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof.
In regards to claim 3, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) the cathode comprises the photoacid generator, the emission layer comprises the photoacid generator, the hole transport region comprises the photoacid generator, the anode comprises the photoacid generator (See, for example, Abstract), or a combination thereof, the light-emitting device further comprises a photoacid generating layer comprising the photoacid generator, or a combination thereof.
In regards to claim 5, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) wherein the photoacid generating layer (205) is: located between the cathode and the electron transport region; located between the electron transport region and the emission layer; located between the emission layer and the hole transport region; located between the hole transport region (207) and the anode (201); or a combination thereof.
In regards to claim 7, Antoniadis as modified above discloses the electron transport region further comprises a photoacid generating layer, wherein the photoacid generating layer is in direct contact with the electron transport layer (See, for example Pars [0049], [0050], and [0059], Steiger).
In regards to claim 12, Antoniadis as modified above discloses the metal oxide comprises a zinc-containing oxide (See, for example, Par [0014], Steiger).
In regards to claim 16, Antoniadis as modified above discloses that the emission layer comprises one or more quantum dots (See, for example, Par [0011], Steiger).
Claims 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniadis in view of Tutt, Steiger and Ogi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2007/0077452 A1, hereinafter “Liu”).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, Antoniadis discloses all limitations of claim1 above except that the photoacid generator comprises a compound comprising an onium ion, a compound comprising a halogen, a compound comprising a nitrobenzyl, a compound comprising a sulfonic acid ester, a compound comprising a diazomethane, a compound comprising an oxime, or a combination thereof; and the photoacid generator comprises a compound comprising a sulfonium ion, a compound comprising an iodonium ion, a compound comprising a halogen, a compound comprising an oxime, or a combination thereof, wherein the compound comprising the halogen-is a halogen triazine compound.
Liu while disclosing organic light emitting devices teach (See, for example, Fig. 5) the photoacid generator comprises a compound comprising an onium ion, a compound comprising a halogen, a compound comprising a nitrobenzyl, a compound comprising a sulfonic acid ester, a compound comprising a diazomethane, a compound comprising an oxime, or a combination thereof (See, for example, Par [0037]); and the photoacid generator comprises a compound comprising a sulfonium ion, a compound comprising an iodonium ion, a compound comprising a halogen, a compound comprising an oxime, or a combination thereof, wherein the compound comprising the halogen-is a halogen triazine compound (See, for example, Par [0037]). .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Anotoniadis by Liu because the addition of these materials may lead to increase in conductivity in a system or device by increasing the number of charge carriers present in the system.
In regards to claim 15, Antoniadis discloses all limitations of claim 1 above except that wherein the photoacid generator comprises at least one of Compounds PAG1 to PAG8.
Liu discloses (See, for example, Par [0037]) that the photoacid generator comprises at least Compounds PAG1 (Triarylsulfonium sulfonates) or PAG4 (diphenyliodonium p-toluenesulfonate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Anotoniadis by Liu because the addition of these materials may lead to increase in conductivity in a system or device by increasing the number of charge carriers present in the system.
Claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniadis in view Liu et al. (US 2007/0077452 A1, hereinafter “Liu”), Steiger, and Ogi.
In regards to claim 17, Antoniadis discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2) a method of manufacturing a light-emitting device, the method comprising:
forming a cathode (211) on a substrate (203);
forming an electron transport region (209) on the cathode (211),
forming an emission layer (213) on the electron transport region (211); and
forming an anode (201) on the emission layer (213).
Anotoniadis is silent about the electron transport region comprises a photoacid generator;
However, Liu discloses (see, for example, Fig. 1) the electron transport region comprises a photoacid generator (“…latent activator material” refers to …photo acid generators…”, See, for example, Par [0024]; and “the latent activated layer may further include a material such …an electron transport material…”, See, Par [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Anotoniadis by Liu because the addition of these materials may lead to increase in conductivity in a system or device by increasing the number of charge carriers present in the system.
Antoniadis as modified above is silent about the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer; and wherein the electron transport layer comprises a photoacid generator and a metal oxide.
Steiger while disclosing a light emitting device teaches (See, for example, Fig. 4) the electron transport region comprises an electron transport layer (2); and wherein the electron transport layer (2) comprises a photoacid generator and a metal oxide (See, for example, Pars [0049], [0050] and [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Antoniadis modified by Steiger because this would help enable the direct patterning of the metal oxide layers using precursors with a separate photo acid generator that would simplify the manufacturing process by eliminating the need for traditional photolithography processes that requires photoresist layers that incurs complexity and costs.
Antoniadis further fails to explicitly teach that wherein a weight ratio of the metal oxide to the photoacid generator is about 1000:1 to about 90:1.
Ogi while disclosing a composition forming metal oxide including a solution containing an acid generating agent teaches
a composition for forming a metal oxide thin film pattern which is a solution containing one or more hydrolytic metal compounds selected from the group consisting of hydrolytic organometallic compounds (e.g., metal alkoxide) and metal halides, and a water generating agent which frees water under the effect of irradiation with active rays (e.g., o-nitrobenzyl alcohol and 2-nitroethanol) and, as required, an acid generating agent which frees acid under the effect of irradiation with active rays is disclosed (See Abstract);
acid generating agents include: onium salts such as an iodonium salt and sulfonium salt; organic halides such as an halogen-containing benzene derivative, an halogen-containing alkane or cycloalkane, and an halogen-containing s-triazine or isocyanurate derivative; o- or p-nitrobenzylester; and an aromatic sulfonic ester or sulfonyl compound such as a benzene polysulfonic ester, bisallylsulfonyl diazomethane, and 2-phenylsulfonylacetophenone (See, Col. 4 line 24-39); and
Thereafter, a thin film pattern comprising a metal oxide of a desired composition is formed by converting the metal compounds in the film fully into metal oxides through heat treatment of the substrate. This heat treatment should preferably be carried out through sintering in an open air atmosphere at 300.degree. to 800.degree. C. (See, for example, Col. 6 lines 41-47).
As to the proportions:
the concentration of said hydrolytic metal compound in said composition is within a range of from 1 to 20 wt. % (See, for example, claim 2);
the concentration of said photosensitizer which forms an acid under irradiation with active rays in said composition is within a range of from 0.001 to 20 wt. % , or more preferably, 0.1 to 10 wt. % (See, for example, Claim 3 and Col. 4 line 67 thru col. 5 line 3); and
Table 1 and Table 3 report “concentration as converted into metal oxide” of 5% to 10% for the worked formulations:
Ogi metal oxide equivalent
Ogi acid generating agent
Metal oxide : acid generator
vs. claimed 1,000:1–90:1
10 wt%
0.001 wt% (broad lower limit)
10,000:1
above range
10 wt%
0.01 wt%
1,000:1
claimed upper endpoint
10 wt%
0.1 wt% (preferred lower limit)
100:01:00
inside the claimed range
5 wt%
0.05 wt%
100:01:00
inside the claimed range
5 wt%
0.056 wt%
90:01:00
claimed lower endpoint
10 wt%
10 wt% (preferred upper limit)
1:01
below range
10 wt% (Ex. 17/41)
0.5 wt%
20:01
below range
The disclosed ranges span roughly 10,000:1 down to 1:1, encompassing the claimed 1,000:1–90:1 in full. More usefully, Ogi's preferred lower endpoint of 0.1 wt% acid generating agent, taken with his own 10% metal-oxide-equivalent formulations, lands at 100:1, squarely inside the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the photoacid generator at a metal oxide to photoacid generator weight ratio of about 1000:1 to 90:1, because this would promote conversion of the precursor to the metal oxide while reducing the required radiation energy, and further teaches that a quantity below the prescribed range fails to produce a usable difference between exposed and non-exposed portions whereas a quantity above it denatures the surrounding film, such that the recited ratio amounts to no more than the optimization of a result-effective variable expressly recognized in Ogi.
Claim 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniadis in view of Tutt, Steiger and Ogi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (EP 1416549 A2, hereinafter “Lee”).
In regards to claim 8, Antoniadis as modified above teaches all limitations of claim 6 above except that wherein the metal oxide comprises a compound represented by
Formula 1: M.sub.xO.sub.y
Formula 1 wherein, in Formula 1, M is at least one metal or metalloid from one of Groups 1 to 14 of the IUPAC Periodic Table of Elements, and x and y are each independently an integer from 1 to 5.
However, Lee while disclosing an organic electroluminescent device teaches that a metal oxide represented by the below formula:
MAxMByOz, where MA denotes an alkali metal or alkali earth metal, MB is a group IV or V metal, X is a number of 1 to 2, y is a number of 1 to 2, and z is number of 2 to 3 (See, for example, Par [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshimoto by Lee because this would help reduce the energy gap between a cathode and a light emitting.
In regards to claim 9, Antoniadis as modified discloses that M comprises Zn, Ti, W, Sn, In, Nb, Fe, Ce, Sr, Ba, In, Al, Nb, Si, Mg, Ga, or a combination thereof (See, for example, Par [0015], Lee).
In regards to claim 10, Antoniadis as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 6 except that the metal oxide comprises a compound represented by Formula 2:
Formula 2
M1αM2βOγ
wherein, in Formula 2, M1 is metal or metalloid from one of Groups 1 to 14 of the IUPAC Periodic Table of Elements, M2 is metal or metalloid from one of Groups 1 to 14 of the IUPAC Periodic Table of Elements, M1 and M2 are different, and 0<α≤2, 0<β≤2, and 1<γ≤5.
However, Lee while disclosing an organic electroluminescent device teaches that a metal oxide represented by the below formula:
MAxMByOz, where MA denotes an alkali metal or alkali earth metal, MB is a group IV or V metal, X is a number of 1 to 2, y is a number of 1 to 2, and z is number of 2 to 3 (See, for example, Par [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshimoto by Lee because this would help reduce the energy gap between a cathode and a light emitting.
In regards to claim 11, Antoniadis as modified above discloses that M1 comprises Zn, Ti, W, Sn, In, Nb, Fe, Ce, Sr, Ba, In, Al, Nb (See, MA denotes an alkali metal or alkali earth metal, for example, Sr, Par [0014], Lee), or a combination thereof, and M2 comprises Ti, Sn, Si, Mg, Al, Ga, In (See, MB is a group IV or V metal, for example, Si, and Sn, Par [0014], Lee), or a combination thereof.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antoniadis in view of Tutt, Steiger and Ogi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suh (US 2010/0007270 A1, hereinafter “Suh”).
In regards to claim 18, Antoniadis discloses all limitations of claim 1 but silent about an electronic apparatus, comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1.
Suh while disclosing an OLED teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising the light-emitting device of claim 1 (See, for example, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshimoto by Suh because this would help fabricate an organic light emitting display apparatus that can improve contrast without using a black matrix.
In regards to claim 19, Antoniadis as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2, Suh) the substrate comprises a plurality of sub-pixel areas (130), and a pixel-defining film is located between the plurality of sub-pixel areas, wherein the pixel-defining film (132) comprises the photoacid generator (See, for example, Col. 3 lines 35-40, “… camphor-sulfonic acid”, Antoniadis), a photoacid generating layer comprising the photoacid generator (See, for example, Col. 3 lines 35-40, “… camphor-sulfonic acid”, Antoniadis) is located on the pixel-defining film (132), or a combination thereof.
In regards to claim 20, Antoniadis as modified above discloses (See, for example, Fig. 2, Suh) further comprising a color filter (160), a color-conversion layer, a touchscreen layer, a polarizing layer (150), or a combination thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights