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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 04/18/2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
Claims 1–20 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.
Claims 1, 4, 17, and 20 recite a relationship between the HOMO energy level of the second electron blocking layer and the HOMO energy level of the light-emitting layer. However, the light-emitting layer comprises a host material and a guest material. However as claimed it is unclear if the HOMO energy level of the light-emitting layer corresponds to the HOMO energy level of the host material or the HOMO energy level of the guest material. Therefore, claims 1, 4, 17, and 20 are indefinite.
Claims 5–16 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 2–3 and 18–19 recite a relationship between the first triplet excited state energy level of the second electron blocking layer and the first triplet excited state energy level of the light-emitting layer. However, the light-emitting layer comprises a host material and a guest material. However as claimed it is unclear if the first triplet excited state energy level of the light-emitting layer corresponds to the first triplet excited state energy level of the host material or the first triplet excited state energy level of the guest material. Therefore, claims 2–3 and 18–19 are indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination, HOMO energy level of the light-emitting layer will be interpreted as the HOMO energy level of the host material. Additionally, the triplet excited state energy level of the light-emitting layer will be interpreted as the host material.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11, 12, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 17 recite an organic light-emitting display panel wherein on a condition that a brightness of the light-emitting layer decays to 95% of an initial brightness, a first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 5%, and
PNG
media_image1.png
54
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, a is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and b is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer decays to 95% of the initial brightness.
Claims 12 and 17 recite an organic light-emitting display panel wherein on a condition that the light-emitting layer works more than 120h, a second change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 10%, and
PNG
media_image2.png
55
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, c is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and d is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer works more than 120h.
Per MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by (A) actual reduction to practice, (B) reduction to drawings, or (C) by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
The claims require the limitations described above. The claims defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result, but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The specification essentially recites the claim limitation without provided any guidance on how to achieve the result (see [0016], [0018], [0037], [0039], [0095] – [0097], [0102], [0107]). Notably, the specification does not provide the HOMO energy level values, the triplet energy level values, or the hole mobility values of any of the compounds used in the exemplified devices making it difficult to evaluate if the devices meet the claimed relationships. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the specification of the application as filed.
Additionally, the specification only provides 12 devices examples wherein only five compounds of the material for the first electron blocking layer and the material for the second electron blocking layer which satisfy the limitations described above. The specification provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials that might be usable to meet the claimed properties as the material for the first electron blocking layer and the material for the second electron blocking layer and no further description of other means of identifying which species would possess the claimed common structural characteristics or shared trait which would result in the claimed relationship. For example, the material for the first electron blocking layer and the material for the second electron blocking layer could be any one of a small molecule, an organometallic compound, or a polymer, which encompasses a vast number of potential compounds and even greater number of combinations. In claim 17, the material for the first electron blocking layer and the material for the second electron blocking layer is provided from a list of compounds, which is supported by the specification. However, claims 11 and 12 do not provide a list of compounds which may be used as the material for the first electron blocking layer and the material for the second electron blocking layer, and the specification provides a broad guidance to which materials may be chosen, as described above. The limited number of examples described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.
Therefore, claims 11, 12, and 17 are rejected as lacking adequate written description.
Claims 18–20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 17.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6–8, and 13–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (Displays, 2022, 74, 102287, hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao discloses an organic light emitting device including a first electrode (ITO), a hole injection layer (HAT-CN), a hole transport layer (TCTA), a first electron blocking layer (TCTA), a second electron blocking layer (mCP), a light emitting layer, a first hole blocking layer (DPETPO), a second hole blocking layer (CzSi), an electron transport layer (Tm3PyP26PyB), an electron injection layer (LiF), and a second electrode (Al) (shown below on Fig. 2) [pg. 2]. The hole mobility of TCTA is greater than mCP [Fig. 3]. The HOMO energy level of TCTA (-5.8 eV) is greater than the HOMO energy level of mCP (-5.9 eV) which is greater than the HOMO energy level of DPETPO (-6.5 eV) [Fig. 2].
PNG
media_image3.png
413
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer is the same as the HOMO energy level of the first electron blocking layer (-5.8 eV).
Regarding Claim 7, the difference in the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer and the first electron blocking layer (0 eV) is less than the difference in HOMO energy level of the first electron blocking layer and the second electron blocking layer (0.1 eV).
Regarding Claim 13, the organic light emitting device of Zhao emits light from about 450 nm to about 600 nm [Fig. 4]. Therefore, the organic light emitting device emits some wavelengths of light which are considered green.
Regarding Claim 14, the hole mobility of the first electron blocking layer (TCTA) and the second electron blocking layer (mCP) are both greater than 10-4 cm2V-1s-1 [Fig. 3].
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, 5–6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0047925 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) and Jhulki et al. (J. Mater, Chem. C. 2018, 6, 8280, hereinafter “Jhulki”), and evidenced by Xiang et al. (Light: Science & Applications, 2013 2, e74, hereinafter “Xiang”).
Kim teaches the organic light-emitting device of Fig. 1 (shown below) including a first electrode (10), a hole injection layer (20), a hole transport layer (30), an electron blocking layer (45), a light-emitting layer (60), an electron transport layer (70), an electron injection layer (80), and a second electrode (90) [0040] – [0041]. The electron blocking layer (45) includes a first electron blocking layer (40) on the hole transport layer, and a second electron blocking layer (50) on the first electron blocking layer, wherein the first electron blocking layer has a greater HOMO value than the second electron blocking layer ([0010] and [0047]). Kim further teaches the HOMO values of the HTL (30), the electron blocking layer (45), and the light-emitting layer (60) are gradually lowered in succession [0052]. Kim further teaches a non-limiting list of compounds which could be used in the electron blocking layer, but is not limited thereto [0048]. Additionally, Kim teaches organic light emitting devices according to present disclosure has a structure in which the HOMO values of an HTL, an electron blocking layer, and a light emitting layer are gradually lowered in succession, and thus the lifetime of the organic light emitting device is increased [0076].
PNG
media_image4.png
348
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Kim fails to teach the hole mobility of the first and second electron blocking layers.
Jhulki teaches compounds which may be used in the hole transport region of an organic light emitting diodes such as NPB and TCTA (Table 2 and pg. 8318–8319).
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 use NPB and TCTA in the first and second electron blocking layers of the organic light emitting device taught by Kim, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Jhulki and Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with an increased lifetime, as taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose NPB and TCTA, because it would have been choosing between the hole transport materials taught by Jhulki, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the hole transport material in the electron blocking layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising NPB and TCTA having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
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.
Per Claim 1, the organic light emitting device, as described above (hereinafter “Device 1”), reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes first electrode (10), a hole injection layer (20), a hole transport layer (30), a first electron blocking layer (40), a second electron blocking layer (50), a light-emitting layer (60), an electron transport layer (70), an electron injection layer (80), and a second electrode (90) wherein the first electron blocking layer comprises NPB and the second electron blocking layer comprises TCTA. The HOMO energy level of the first electron blocking layer (-5.5 eV) is greater than the HOMO energy level of the second electron blocking layer (-5.7 eV) [Table 2 of Jhulki]. Additionally, Kim teaches the HOMO values of the HTL (30), the electron blocking layer (45), and the light-emitting layer (60) are gradually lowered in succession [0052].
However, Kim does not explicitly teach the HOMO energy level of the light emitting layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a light emitting layer with a lower HOMO than the second electron blocking layer. One would be motivated to do so because Kim teaches that if the HOMO values of the HTL, electron blocking layer, and light emitting layer are gradually lowered in succession, the lifetime of the organic light emitting device is increased.
The hole mobility of the first electron blocking layer is 3.5 x 10-4 cm2V-1s-1 [Table 2 of Jhulki].
However, Jhulki is silent with respect to the hole mobility of TCTA.
Xiang teaches the hole mobility of TCTA is 3 x 10-4 cm2V-1s-1 [pg. 5]. Since Jhulki teaches TCTA, the same structures as disclosed by Xiang, the property of hole mobility is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Therefore, the hole mobility of the first electron blocking layer (3.5 x 10-4 cm2V-1s-1) is greater than the hole mobility of the second electron blocking layer (3 x 10-4 cm2V-1s-1), reading on Applicant’s limitation.
Per Claim 5, the HOMO energy of the first electron blocking layer comprising NPB is -5.5 eV, while the HOMO energy level of the second electron blocking layer comprising TCTA is -5.7 eV.
Per Claim 6, Kim teaches the HOMO values of the HTL (30), the electron blocking layer (45), and the light-emitting layer (60) are gradually lowered in succession [0052].
However, Kim does not explicitly teach the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hole transport layer with a greater HOMO than the first electron blocking layer. One would be motivated to do so because Kim teaches that if the HOMO values of the HTL, electron blocking layer, and light emitting layer are gradually lowered in succession, the lifetime of the organic light emitting device is increased.
Per Claim 15, the first electron blocking layer comprises NPB while the second electron blocking layer comprises TCTA (shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
265
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
243
215
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Jhulki as applied to claims 1, 5–6, and 15 above, and further in view of Qiu et al. (US 2022/0320455 A1, hereinafter “Qiu”).
Regarding Claim 4, in Device 1, the difference in the HOMO energy level of the first electron blocking layer comprising NPB (-5.5 eV) and the second electron blocking layer comprising TCTA (-5.7 eV) is 0.2 eV, which meets Applicant’s limitation.
However, Device 1 is silent with respect to the HOMO energy level of the light emitting layer, and more specifically the host material.
Qiu teaches
0.2
e
V
≤
H
O
M
O
E
B
L
-
H
O
M
O
H
o
s
t
<
0.5
e
V
, wherein HOMOEBL is the HOMO energy level of the electron blocking layer and HOMOHost is the HOMO energy level of the host material [0096]. Qiu further teaches setting this HOMO energy level relationship reduces the voltage of a device [0096].
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 the difference in the HOMO energy level of the second electron blocking layer and the host material in Device 1 to be 0.2 eV, based on the teaching of Qiu. The motivation for doing so would have been to minimize the voltage of the device, as taught by Qiu. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Device 1, as described above, reads on Applicant’s limitation since the difference in HOMO energy level of the first electron blocking layer and the second electron blocking layer is 0.2 eV, while the difference in HOMO energy level of the second electron blocking layer and the host material is 0.2 eV.
Claims 1–3, 6–9, 11–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jhulki, Kido et al. (JP 2005-320277 A, hereinafter “Kido”) and Baldo et al. (Appl. Phys. Lett. 1999, 75, 4–6, hereinafter “Baldo”), and evidenced by Ide et al. (Proc. Of SPIE, 2006, Vol. 6333, 63330M, hereinafter “Ide”) and Forrest et al. (Phys. Rev. 2000, B 62, 10958, hereinafter “Forrest”). The English translation of Kido was provided in this Office Action.
Kim teaches the organic light-emitting device of Fig. 1 (shown below) including a first electrode (10), a hole injection layer (20), a hole transport layer (30), an electron blocking layer (45), a light-emitting layer (60), an electron transport layer (70), an electron injection layer (80), and a second electrode (90) [0040] – [0041]. The electron blocking layer (45) includes a first electron blocking layer (40) on the hole transport layer, and a second electron blocking layer (50) on the first electron blocking layer, wherein the first electron blocking layer has a greater HOMO value than the second electron blocking layer ([0010] and [0047]). Kim further teaches the HOMO values of the HTL (30), the electron blocking layer (45), and the light-emitting layer (60) are gradually lowered in succession [0052]. Kim further teaches a non-limiting list of compounds which could be used in the electron blocking layer, but is not limited thereto [0048]. Additionally, Kim teaches organic light emitting devices according to present disclosure has a structure in which the HOMO values of an HTL, an electron blocking layer, and a light emitting layer are gradually lowered in succession, and thus the lifetime of the organic light emitting device is increased [0076].
PNG
media_image4.png
348
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Kim does explicitly teach a compound for the first electron blocking layer, compound for the second electron blocking layer, a compound for the hole transport layer, and compounds for the light emitting layer.
Regarding the first electron blocking layer, Jhulki teaches compounds which may be used in the hole transport region of an organic light emitting diodes such as Compound 205 (Table 2 and pg. 8318–8319).
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 use Compound 205 in the first electron blocking layers of the organic light emitting device taught by Kim, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Jhulki and Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with an increased lifetime, as taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose Compound 205, because it would have been choosing between the hole transport materials taught by Jhulki, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the hole transport material in the electron blocking layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising Compound 205 having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
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.
Regarding the second electron blocking layer, Kido teaches compounds which may be used in the hole transport region of an organic light emitting diodes such as 4CzPBP (pg. 17 of the English translation and [0102] of the original document). Kido further teaches that the compounds of present disclosure have a benefit of a wide band gap [pg. 17 of the English translation].
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 use 4CzPBP in the second electron blocking layers of the organic light emitting device taught by Kim, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Kido and Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with an increased lifetime, as taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose 4CzPBP, because it would have been choosing between the hole transport materials taught by Kido, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a compound useful as the hole transport material in the electron blocking layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising 4CzPBP having the benefits taught by Kim in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
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.
Regarding the light emitting layer, Baldo teaches an example light emitting device comprising NPD as the hole transport material, while the light emitting layer comprises Ir(ppy)3 and CBP (shown below) [Fig. 1]. Baldo further teaches organic light emitting devices comprising Ir(ppy)3 and CBP exhibit very high efficiency [Title and abstract].
PNG
media_image7.png
422
545
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 the hole transport layer comprise NPD while the light emitting layer comprises CBP and Ir(ppy)3 in the organic light emitting device taught by Kim, because this would have been combining the prior art elements of Baldo and Kim according to known methods to yield predictable results of an organic light emitting device with an increased lifetime, as taught by Kim. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Per Claim 1, the organic light emitting device, as described above (hereinafter “Device 2”), reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a first electron blocking layer, a second electron blocking layer, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode wherein the first electron blocking layer comprises Compound 205 and the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP. Compound 205 has a HOMO energy level of -5.5 eV and a hole mobility of 2 x 10-5 cm2V-1s-1 [Table 2 of Jhulki]. 4CzPBP has a HOMO energy level of -6.06 eV [Table 3 and pg. 100 of Kido]. CBP has a HOMO energy level of -6.3 eV [Fig. 1 of Baldo].
However, Kido is silent with respect to the hole mobility of 4CzPBP.
The instant specification recites Examples 11 and 12 [Table 2] wherein the first electron blocking layer comprises BCzPh, the same structure as Compound 205, while the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP. Since Jhulki teaches Compound 205 and Kido teaches 4CzPBP, the same structures as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of 4CzPBP having a lower hole mobility than BCzPh is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claims 2 and 18, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since the first electron blocking layer comprises Compound 205 which has a triplet excited state energy level of 2.9 eV [Table 2 of Jhulki].
However, Device 2 is silent with respect to the triplet excited state energy level of 4CzPBP and CBP.
Ide teaches the triplet excited state energy level of 4CzPBP is 2.77 eV [Fig. 4 and pg. 4 of Ide]. Since Kido teaches 4CzPBP, the same structures as disclosed by Ide, the property of triplet excited state energy level is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Forrest teaches the triplet excited state energy level of CBP is 2.6 eV [Table 1 and pg. 10962 of Forrest]. Since Baldo teaches CBP, the same structures as disclosed by Forrest, the property of triplet excited state energy level is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Therefore, in Device 2 the first electron blocking layer comprising Compound 205 has a triplet excited state energy level of 2.9 eV, the second electron blocking layer comprising 4CzPBP has a triplet excited state energy level of 2.77 eV, and the light emitting layer comprising CBP has a triplet excited state energy level of 2.6 eV, reading on Applicant’s limitation.
Per Claims 3 and 19, in Device 2 the first electron blocking layer comprising Compound 205 has a triplet excited state energy level of 2.9 eV, the second electron blocking layer comprising 4CzPBP has a triplet excited state energy level of 2.77 eV, and the light emitting layer comprising CBP has a triplet excited state energy level of 2.6 eV. Therefore, the difference in the triplet excited state energy level of the first electron blocking layer and the second electron blocking layer is 0.13 eV, and the difference in the triplet excited state energy level of the second electron blocking layer and the light emitting layer is 0.17 eV, reading on Applicant’s limitation.
Per Claim 6, in Device 2 the hole transport layer comprises NPB which has a HOMO energy level of -5.5 eV while the first electron blocking layer comprising Compound 205 has a HOMO energy level of -5.5 eV [Table 2 of Jhulki], reading on Applicant’s limitation.
Per Claims 7 and 8, in Device 2 the difference in the HOMO energy level of the hole transport layer comprising NPB and the first electron blocking layer comprising Compound 205 is 0 eV, while the difference in the HOMO energy level between the first electron blocking layer comprising Compound 205 and the second electron blocking layer comprising 4CzPBP is 0.56 eV, reading on Applicant’s limitation.
Per Claim 9, Device 2 is silent with respect to the carrier tolerance of the first electron blocking layer and the second electron blocking layer.
The instant specification recites Examples 11 and 12 [Table 2] wherein the first electron blocking layer comprises BCzPh, the same structure as Compound 205, while the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP. Since Jhulki teaches Compound 205 and Kido teaches 4CzPBP, the same structures as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of BCzPh having a lower carrier tolerance than 4CzPBP is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 11, Device 2 is silent with respect to the condition that the brightness decays to 95% of an initial brightness, a first change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 5%, and
PNG
media_image1.png
54
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, a is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and b is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer decays to 95% of the initial brightness.
The instant specification recites Examples 11 and 12 [Table 2] wherein the hole transport layer comprises NPB, the first electron blocking layer comprises BCzPh, the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP, and the light emitting layer comprises CBP and Ir(ppy)3. Since Kim in view of Jhulki, Kido, and Baldo teaches Device 2, the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of “the condition that the brightness decays to 95% of an initial brightness, a first change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 5%, and
PNG
media_image1.png
54
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, a is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and b is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer decays to 95% of the initial brightness” is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 12, Device 2 is silent with respect to the condition that the light-emitting layer works more than 120h, a second change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 10%, and
PNG
media_image2.png
55
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, c is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and d is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer works more than 120h.
The instant specification recites Examples 11 and 12 [Table 2] wherein the hole transport layer comprises NPB, the first electron blocking layer comprises BCzPh, the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP, and the light emitting layer comprises CBP and Ir(ppy)3. Since Kim in view of Jhulki, Kido, and Baldo teaches Device 2, the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of “the condition that the light-emitting layer works more than 120h, a second change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 10%, and
PNG
media_image2.png
55
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, c is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and d is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer works more than 120h” is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claim 13, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it comprises Ir(ppy)3 as an emitter which emits green light, as taught by Baldo [Title and Fig. 4 of Baldo].
Per Claim 14, in Device 2 the hole mobility of the first electron blocking comprising Compound 205 is 2 x 10-5 cm2V-1s-1 [Table 2 of Jhulki].
However, Kido is silent with respect to the hole mobility of 4CzPBP.
The instant specification recites Examples 11 and 12 [Table 2] wherein the first electron blocking layer comprises BCzPh, the same structure as Compound 205, while the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP. Since Kido teaches 4CzPBP, the same structures as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of 4CzPBP having a hole mobility in the range of greater than or equal to 10-6 cm2V-1s-1 is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Per Claims 15 and 16, in Device 2 the first electron blocking layer comprises Compound 205, which is the same as Applicant’s BCzPh, and the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP (shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
398
345
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
243
354
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 17, Device 2 reads on Applicant’s limitation since it includes first electrode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a first electron blocking layer, a second electron blocking layer, a light-emitting layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a second electrode wherein the first electron blocking layer comprises Compound 205 and the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP. Compound 205 has a HOMO energy level of -5.5 eV and a hole mobility of 2 x 10-5 cm2V-1s-1 [Table 2 of Jhulki]. 4CzPBP has a HOMO energy level of -6.06 eV [Table 3 and pg. 100 of Kido]. CBP has a HOMO energy level of -6.3 eV [Fig. 1 of Baldo].
However, Kido is silent with respect to the hole mobility of 4CzPBP.
The instant specification recites Examples 11 and 12 [Table 2] wherein the first electron blocking layer comprises BCzPh, the same structure as Compound 205, while the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP. Since Jhulki teaches Compound 205 and Kido teaches 4CzPBP, the same structures as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of 4CzPBP having a lower hole mobility than BCzPh is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
In Device 2, the first electron blocking layer comprises Compound 205, which is the same as Applicant’s BCzPh, and the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP (shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
398
345
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
243
354
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Device 2 is silent with respect to the condition that the brightness decays to 95% of an initial brightness, a first change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 5%, and
PNG
media_image1.png
54
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, a is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and b is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer decays to 95% of the initial brightness.
The instant specification recites Examples 11 and 12 [Table 2] wherein the hole transport layer comprises NPB, the first electron blocking layer comprises BCzPh, the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP, and the light emitting layer comprises CBP and Ir(ppy)3. Since Kim in view of Jhulki, Kido, and Baldo teaches Device 2, the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of “the condition that the brightness decays to 95% of an initial brightness, a first change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 5%, and
PNG
media_image1.png
54
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, a is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and b is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer decays to 95% of the initial brightness” is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Device 2 is silent with respect to the condition that the light-emitting layer works more than 120h, a second change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 10%, and
PNG
media_image2.png
55
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, c is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and d is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer works more than 120h.
The instant specification recites Examples 11 and 12 [Table 2] wherein the hole transport layer comprises NPB, the first electron blocking layer comprises BCzPh, the second electron blocking layer comprises 4CzPBP, and the light emitting layer comprises CBP and Ir(ppy)3. Since Kim in view of Jhulki, Kido, and Baldo teaches Device 2, the same structure as disclosed by the Applicant, the property of “the condition that the light-emitting layer works more than 120h, a second change amplitude of a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode is less than or equal to 10%, and
PNG
media_image2.png
55
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ω1 is the first change amplitude of capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, c is an initial value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode, and d is a measured value of the capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode on the condition that the brightness of the light-emitting layer works more than 120h” is considered to be inherent (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. See MPEP 2112.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jhulki, Kido, and Baldo, and evidenced by Ide and Forrest as applied to claim 1–3, 6–9, 11–19 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0395568 A1, hereinafter “Seo”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 20, in Device 2, the HOMO energy level difference between the first electron blocking layer comprising Compound 205 (-5.5 eV) and the second electron blocking layer comprising 4CzPBP (-6.06 eV) is 0.56 eV, while the HOMO energy level difference between the second electron blocking layer comprising 4CzPBP (-6.06 eV) and the light emitting layer comprising CBP (-6.3) is 0.24 eV. Since Applicant’s claim is recited to one significant figure, the HOMO energy level differences were rounded to 0.6 eV and 0.2 eV, respectively. Therefore, the HOMO energy level difference between the second electron blocking layer and the light emitting layer reads on Applicant’s limitation.
However, the HOMO energy level difference between the first electron blocking layer and the second electron blocking layer fails to read on Applicant’s limitation.
Seo teaches the HOMO energy level of a first hole transport layer and a second hole transport layer is preferably selected so that the difference between the HOMO energy level is less than or equal to 0.2 eV. Seo further teaches that owing to such a relation between the HOMO energy levels of the hole transport compounds, the holes are injected into each layer smoothly to prevent an increase in driving voltage and deficiency in holes in the light emitting layer [0073].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Device 2 to ensure that the difference in the HOMO energy level of the first electron blocking layer and the second electron blocking layer is less than or equal to 0.2 eV. One would be motivated to do so based on the increase in driving voltage as a result of that relationship, as taught by Seo.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jhulki, Kido, and Baldo, and evidenced by Ide and Forrest as applied to claim 1–3, 6–9, 11–19 above, and further in view of Herron et al. (US 2005/0186495 A1, hereinafter “Herron”).
Regarding Claim 10, Device 2 is silent with respect to the thickness of the first electron blocking layer and the second electron blocking layer.
Herron teaches the location of the electron-hole recombination zone in a device and thus the emission spectrum of the device can be affected by relative thickness of each layer [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the first electron blocking layer and the second electron blocking layer. The motivation to do so would have been to ensure the electron-hole recombination zone in the light emitting layer, as taught by Herron.
Additionally, 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 the thickness of the first electron blocking layer be greater than the thickness of the second electron blocking layer, because it would have been choosing between it being thicker, thinner, or the same as the second electron blocking layer, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of the thickness of the electron blocking layer of the organic light emitting device of Kim and possessing the benefits taught by Herron. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices with different thicknesses of electron transport layers having the benefits taught by Herron in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES RICHARD FORTWENGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-5433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/J.R.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights