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 .
Preliminary amendment to the specification (07/21/2023) is acknowledged.
The most recent preliminary claim amendment dated 12/05/2023 is entered and is now under consideration. Claims 1-21, 37, 42-45, 47, and 48 are cancelled claims. Claim 46 was amended. Claims 49-55 were newly added. Claims 22-36, 38-41, 46, and 49-55 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 24, 29, 33, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22 fourth line, “comprises” is suggested in place of “comprising”.
In claim 22 seventh line, “optionally” is suggested in place of “optional”.
In claim 22 eleventh line, “comprise” is suggested in place of “comprising”.
In claim 22 twelfth line, “comprise” is suggested in place of “comprising”.
In claim 22 thirteenth line, “comprising” is suggested in place of “comprises”.
In claim 24 in the top line on page 4 of the claim set, “optionally” is suggested in place of “optional”.
In claim 29 in the fourth line from top of page 16 of the claim set “optionally” is suggested in place of “optional”.
Claim 33 on page 21 of claim set includes at least two occurrences of “optional form” where “optionally form” is suggested in place.
In claim 38, “comprising” is suggested in place of “comprises”.
The suggestions are set forth for improved clarity. There may be other instances of similar wording not specifically listed above and consideration of improved clarity is also suggested for those instances. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 22-36, 38-41, 46, and 49-55 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. Note that dependent claims are included in rejections based upon their respective dependence upon rejected claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first common semiconductor comprises”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first common semiconductor” in the claim as only the specific phrase “a first common semiconductor layer” is previously recited. Clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 1 recites “the first common semiconductor comprises at least one organic p-dopant and the second common semiconductor layer have together a sheet resistance of > 50 giga ohms per square”. In the words “have together” is not fully understood, because it is unclear what features are being combined and measured “together”. Clarification and/or correction are required.
In claim 1, the property of “a sheet resistance of > 50 giga ohms per square” is considered indefinite as recited, because it is unclear how the recited sheet resistance is being determined and measured.
Claim 31 recites “according to any of the preceding claim 24”. The phrase is unclear, because there is only one claim 24. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim 31 recites “wherein one of R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 are independently selected”. If a R1 to R5 variable is not the “one” selected, it is unclear how the other of R1 to R5 are defined.
Claim 32 recites “the compounds of p-dopants” (plural), which is considered to lack antecedent basis. The term “compounds of p-dopants” is not previously set forth.
Claim 34 recites the text phrase “condensed rings having a structure of G1 to G4”, but structures (G1) to (G5) are shown. It is unclear if the aromatic compound may also be a structure according to (G5).
Claim 40 recites “the common first hole injection layer”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 22 upon which claim 40 depends does not set forth a common first hole injection layer.
Claim 49 recites “the common hole injection layer” and “the common hole transport layer”, which lack antecedent basis. Claim 22 upon which claim 40 depends does not set forth a common first hole injection layer or a common hole transport layer.
Claim 50 recites “the common stack”, but claim 22 does not provide antecedent basis for the exact term “common stack”.
Claim 51 recites “the electron transport layer”, but claim 22 does not provide antecedent basis for the term “electron transport layer”.
Claim 52 recites “the common electron injection layer”, but claim 22 does not provide antecedent basis for the term “electron injection layer”.
Claim 55 recites “all common semiconductor layers are shared by the plurality of OLED pixels”, but it is unclear if the claim further limits claim 22 as the word “common” describing a layer already requires that the layer be present in the individual pixels.
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 22, 23-25, 27-30, 36, 38-41, 46, and 49-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothe et al. (US 2017/0222170 A1).
Rothe et al. teaches active OLED displays comprising a plurality of pixels including at least a common hole transport layer (see abstract). See pixels structure of Figure 1 (par. 41):
PNG
media_image1.png
406
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Individual pixels are 2, 3, and 4. Cathode layer is 6. Emitting layers are 2b, 3b, and 4b. Common layers include hole transport layer 7, electron blocking layer 5, and electron transport layer 9 (see par. 46). The hole transport layer comprises p-dopant (see par. 12). At least one dopant is the following 3-radialene compound “PD2” (see Table 1 on page 6):
PNG
media_image2.png
236
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The hole transport layer with p-dopant reads upon first common semiconductor layer and at least electron blocking layer 5 reads upon the second common semiconductor layer. It is not seen where the property of sheet resistance is specifically discussed, but materials and layers that meet the recited limitations are taught. (Further note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above regarding the sheet resistance limitation as being indefinite as presently presented.) The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claim 41, the claim is a product by process type claim. Per MPEP 2113, the patentability of a product does not depend on is method of production. The prior art is considered to teach the product.
Regarding claim 23-25, 27, 28, 30, and 31, at least p-dopant compound PD2 as discussed above is taught by Rothe et al. The compound PD2 is a 3-radialene.
Regarding claim 36, the hole transport layer 7 discussed above is adjacent the anodes and is considered to have a property of injecting holes and thereby meets the structural requirement of “common hole injection layer”.
Regarding claims 38 and 40, the Figure 1 configuration of layer 7 as “first common” layer and layer 5 as “second common” layer meets the recited limitations. Regarding claim 39, Figure 1 layer 5 as an electron blocking layer meets the limitation (see par. 46).
Regarding claim 46, the Figure 1 hole transport layer 7 as discussed above is common to the plurality of OLED pixels. Regarding claim 49, the layer 7 comprises the p-dopant and a hole transport material (see par. 56 and Table 1). Regarding claim 50, further layers of a Figure 1 display include a common electron transport layer 9 (see par. 46) and per claim 51 the layer 9 is adjacent the cathode 6 (see par. 46). Per instant claim 52, the layer 9 is considered to include electron injecting functionality and is directly adjacent cathode layer 6 (Figure 1 and par. 46).
Regarding claim 53, a driving circuit is included to drive the pixels (see abstract).
Regarding claim 54, layer 5 is shared among the pixels (Figure 1 and par. 46). Regarding claim 55, all common layers required in parent claim 22 - cathode (6), first (7) and second (5) common layers - are in all of the pixels (see Figure 1, par. 46).
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 select materials and form a device structure as described above wherein the resultant materials and device would also meet the limitations of the instant claims. One would expect to achieve an operational device within the disclosure of Rothe et al. with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothe et al. (US 2017/0222170 A1) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 2008/0265216 A1).
Rothe et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Rothe et al. teaches doping a layer with radialene p-dopant in a light emitting device (par. 12), but it is not seen where a radialene p-dopant with differing groups as instant claim 26 or with groups the same as claim 31 is specifically taught. In analogous art, Hartmann et al. teaches 3-radialene compounds as dopants in hole transport material for use in a light emitting device (see Hartmann et al. par. 35), which may have differing groups per instant claim 26 and may have groups per instant claim 31 (such as instant formula 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected dopant for hole transport mateiral for an OLED as taught by Hartmann et al. as dopant in a device according to Rothe et al., because one would expect the compounds as dopant for hole transport mateiral taught by Hartmann et al. to be similarly useful as a 3-radialene dopant in a device according to Rothe et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device using materials and layers accordign to the teachings of Rothe and Hartmann with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 29, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothe et al. (US 2017/0222170 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 2009/0206744 A1).
Rothe et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Rothe et al. teaches doping a layer with p-dopant in a light emitting device (par. 12), but it is not seen where a p-dopant the same as instant formula 5 or 6 is specifically taught. In analogous art, Lim et al. teaches the following compounds 3 and 4 as p-dopants for use in a light emitting device (see Lim par. 37-38), which are within instant formulas 5 or 6, respectively, of instant claims 29 and 35:
PNG
media_image3.png
98
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
168
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Compound 4 is the same as instant compound E1 of claim 32. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a p-dopant as taught by Lim et al. as a p-dopant in a device according to Rothe et al., because one would expect the compounds as p-dopants taught by Lim et al. to be similarly useful as p-dopant in a device according to Rothe et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device using materials and layers accordign to the teachings of Rothe and Lim with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothe et al. (US 2017/0222170 A1) in view of Morishita et al. (US 2014/0001461 A1)
Rothe et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Rothe et al. teaches doping a hole-transporting layer with p-dopant in a light emitting device (par. 12), but it is not seen where a p-dopant the same as instant formula 14b is specifically taught. In analogous art, Morishita et al. teaches the following indenofluorenedione compound A-55 as dopant for a hole injecting and/or hole transporting layer (see Morishita claims 25-26 on page 37) for use in a light emitting device structure, which is within instant formula 14b of instant claim 33 (see Morishita page 12):
PNG
media_image5.png
116
292
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Compound A-55 is the same as instant compound G2 of claim 34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a p-dopant as taught by Morishita et al. as a p-dopant in a device according to Rothe et al., because one would expect the compounds as p-dopants taught by Morishita et al. to be similarly useful as p-dopant in a device according to Rothe et al. One would expect to achieve an operational device using materials and layers accordign to the teachings of Rothe and Morishita with a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tobias Wollandt, Sabrina Steffens, Yurii Radiev, Florian Letzkus, Joachim N. Burghartz, Gregor Witte, Hagen Klauk; Reliability of the Transmission Line Method and Reproducibility of the Measured Contact Resistance of Organic Thin-Film Transistors. ACS Nano 18 March 2025; 19 (10): 9915–9924.
The article discusses the transmission line method with respect to resistance measurement. The reference is considered relevant to the field of the endeavor.
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
Prosecution Insights