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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. It is the Examiner's position that at least a chemical structure formula (I) and (II) should be shown in the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 2, 6-8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 it is suggested that the dashes "-" be deleted for ease of reading;
in claim 1 on line 6, it is suggested that "each of the at least one charge generation layer" be changed to "each of the at least one charge generation layers" for ease of reading;
in claim 1 it is suggested that Rʻ be changed to R' for ease of reading; and
in claim 2 on line 4, it is suggested that "each of the at least one charge generation layer" be changed to "each of the at least one charge generation layers" for ease of reading;
in clam 6, it is suggested that "said" be replaced with "the" for ease of reading;
in claim 7, it is suggested that Rʼ is selected from CN be changed to "R[[ʼ]]' is CN" for ease of reading; and
in claims 8 and 11, it is suggested that "are selected the same" be changed to "are.
Appropriate correction is 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganier et al. US-20210210708-A1 (hereinafter "Ganier") in view of Cui et al. US-20200062778-A1 (hereinafter "Cui").
Regarding claims 1-15, Ganier teaches a tandem OLED comprising a charge generation layer (¶ [0650] and FIG. 7) comprising an anode electrode, a first hole injection layer (HIL), a first hole transport layer (HTL), a first electron blocking layer (EBL), a first emission layer (EML), a first hole blocking layer (HBL), an electron transport layer stack of a first electron transport layer (ETL) and a second electron transport layer (ETL) , an n-type charge generation layer (n-type CGL), a p-type charge generation layer (p-type GCL), a second hole transport layer (HTL), a second electron blocking layer (EBL), a second emission layer (EML), a second hole blocking layer (EBL), a second electron transport layer stack (ETL) of a fourth electron transport layer (ETL) and a third electron transport layer (ETL), an electron injection layer (EIL), a first cathode electrode layer, and a second cathode electrode layer (¶ [0661] and FIG. 7). Ganier further teaches a device comprising the OLED in a display or a lighting panel (¶ [0641]). Ganier teaches the device comprising two, three or four emission layers (¶ [0715]).
Ganier teaches wherein the hole injection layer comprises 97 wt.-% of Biphenyl-4-yl(9,9-diphenyl-9H-fluoren-2-yl)-[4-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-3-yl)phenyl]-amine and 3 wt.-% of 2,2′,2″-(cyclopropane-1,2,3-triylidene)tris(2-(p-cyanotetrafluorophenyl)acetonitrile), which meets the claimed Formula (I) (¶ [0666]). The hole injection layer in the modified device of Ganier in view of Cui corresponds to the claimed organic semiconductor layer.
Ganier does not specifically teach wherein the p-type charge generation layer (p-type GCL) comprises an organic hole transport material and a compound of formula (II). However, Ganier teaches the p-type GCL can be composed of organic material doped with p-type dopant (e.g. a host), wherein the p-type dopant and the host can employ conventional materials (¶ [0589]). Ganier teaches wherein the host can be one selected from a group consisting of N,N′-di(naphthalen-1-yl)-N,N-diphenyl-benzidine (NPB), N,N′-diphenyl-N,N′-bis(3-methylphenyl)-1,1-biphenyl-4,4′-diamine (TPD) and N,N′,N′-tetranaphthyl-benzidine (TNB) (¶ [0589]).
Cui teaches a charge generation layer comprising a benzodithiophene or its analogous structure compound, which can be used for the p-type charge generation layer in tandem OLEDs structure and can provide better device performance, for example, to further improve the voltage, efficiency and/or lifetime of the OLEDs (¶ [0013]). Cui teaches wherein the p-type charge generation layer further comprises at least one hole transporting material and is formed by doping the compound of Formula 1, and more specifically Formula 1', in at least one hole transporting material (¶ [0134] and ¶ [0028]) and teaches specific examples of the compound of Formula 1' including Compound 56
PNG
media_image1.png
355
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(¶ [0241]), Compound 68 (¶ [0249]), and Compound 70 (¶ [0257]), each of which meet the claimed Formula (II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ganier by forming the p-type dopant out of the compound of Formula 1', as taught by Cui. One would have been motivated to do so because Ganier teaches the p-type CGL comprises a p-type dopant which may be conventional materials and Cui teaches the compound of Formula 1' for use as a dopant in a p-type charge generation layer in tandem OLED structure. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, Cui teaches that the compound can provide better device performance, for example, to further improve the voltage, efficiency and/or lifetime of the OLED and therefore forming the p-type dopant out of the compound of Formula 1', as taught by Cui, in the device of Ganier would yield the benefit of improved the voltage, efficiency and/or lifetime, as described above.
The modified device of Ganier in view of Cui meets claims 1-15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hummert et al. US-20170373251-A1 teaches a [3]-radialene p-dopant wherein the [3]-radialene p-dopant is selected from compounds having a structure according to formula (I) (¶ [0004] and ¶ [0007]), cited on the IDS of 07/25/2023; and Cui et al. US-20200087311-A1, cited on the IDS of 07/25/2023, teaches a benzodithiophene analogue compound having Formula 1 which can be used for the p type charge generation layer in tandem OLEDs structure (¶ [003]-[0014]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth M. Dahlburg whose telephone number is 571-272-6424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, and alternate Fridays.
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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M. DAHLBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights