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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 11, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2, 5, 6, and 9 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein a thickness of the first organic layer is not greater than 100 nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the thickness of the first organic layer is not greater than 30 nm; and more preferably, the thickness of the first organic layer is not greater than 20 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 5 recites the broad recitation “wherein a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital of the first p-type dopant is different from a LUMO of the second p-type dopant”, and the claim also recites “preferably, 0.05 eV ≤|LUMOfirst p-type dopant – LUMOsecond p-type dopant |≤0.8 eV; and more preferably, 0.1 eV ≤| LUMOfirst p-type dopant – LUMOsecond p-type dopant |≤0.5 eV” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein the LUMO of the first p-type dopant and/or the LUMO of the second p-type dopant is less than or equal to -4.3 eV and greater than or equal to -6.0 eV”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the LUMO of the first p-type dopant and/or the LUMO of the second p-type dopant is less than or equal to -4.5 eV and greater than or equal to -5.5 eV” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 9 recites the broad recitation “wherein a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the first organic material is less than or equal to -4.5 eV and greater than or equal to -6.0 eV”, and the claim also recites “preferably, the HOMO of the first organic material is less than or equal to -4.8 eV and greater than or equal to -5.5 eV” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mujica-Fernaud et al (US Pub 2018/0219156).
In re claim 1, Mujica-Fernaud et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and a hole transporting region disposed between the anode and the cathode (i.e. see at least paragraph 0078); wherein the hole transporting region contains a first organic layer (i.e. see at least paragraph 0084 disclosing at least a hole-transport layer); the first organic layer contains a first p-type dopant and a second p-type dopant (i.e. see at least paragraph 0084 disclosing the organic layer comprises one or more p-dopants); and the first p-type dopant is different from the second p-type dopant (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0086-0088 disclosing the different dopants used). In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have picked different dopants when there is more than one dopant in the layer in order to obtain a device with desired characteristics.
In re claim 3, Mujica-Fernaud discloses wherein the first organic layer is in direct contact with the anode (i.e. see at least paragraph 0089 disclosing examples of the anode next to a hole-transport layer).
In re claim 7, Mujica-Fernaud discloses wherein the first organic layer further contains a third p-type dopant (i.e. see at least paragraph 0084 disclosing the organic layer comprises one or more p-dopants), and the third p-type dopant is different from both the first p-type dopant and the second p-type dopant (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0086-0088 disclosing the different dopants used). In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have picked different dopants when there is more than one dopant in the layer in order to obtain a device with desired characteristics.
In re claim 10, Mujica-Fernaud discloses further containing at least one emissive layer, wherein the at least one emissive layer is disposed between the anode and the cathode (i.e. see at least paragraph 0078).
In re claim 11, Mujica-Fernaud discloses wherein the at least one emissive layer contains a light-emitting material, and the light-emitting material is a phosphorescent material or a fluorescent material (i.e. see at least paragraph 0079).
In re claim 16, the recitation “an electronic assembly” in the claim preamble specifies an intended use or field of use and is treated as nonlimiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claim invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, and 12-15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Pfister et al (US Pub 2017/0125701)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1432. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, Monday-Friday.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ANTHONY HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817