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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20 require a hole transport layer with a hole mobility greater than 1x10-4 cm2/Vs, and an electron transport layer with an electron mobility greater than 1x10-5 cm2/Vs. Table 3 (pages 75-76, paragraph 00407) of the instant description provides two examples of hole transporting layers with a hole mobility greater than 1x10-4 cm2/Vs. While these two examples demonstrate hole mobilities within the limits of the claimed range the limited examples of hole transporting layers with a hole mobility greater than 1x10-4 cm2/Vs described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii. Note, the hole mobility of the hole transporting layer as claimed has an unbounded upper limit.
Similarly, Table 3 (pages 75-76, paragraph 00407) of the instant description provides two examples of electron transporting layers with an electron mobility greater than 1x10-5 cm2/Vs. While these two examples demonstrate electron mobilities within the limits of the claimed range the limited examples of electron transporting layers with an electron mobility greater than 1x10-5 cm2/Vs described in the written description do not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii. Note, the electron mobility of the electron transporting layer as claimed has an unbounded upper limit.
Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20 require a light-emitting device comprising an electron transport host compound with an electron mobility of less than 1x10-8 cm2/Vs. Claim 1 does not further define electron transport host compounds with a hole mobility of less than 1x10-8 cm2/Vs by a specific structure or general formula. Thus, as electron transport host compound is broadly defined, electron transport host compounds may be any number of compounds, and the compounds may be small molecules, oligomers, or polymers, and may be purely organic, organometallic, or metallic compounds. The instant description provides only one formula of compounds that are suitable as electron transport host compounds and three specific compounds within this formula (page 12-15, paragraphs 0097-00113). The specification further provides exceptionally broad guidance on what materials might be useable as electron transport host compounds but provides no further description of which materials have an electron mobility of less than 1x10-8 cm2/Vs (page 12, paragraph 0097). The limited examples of compounds described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii.
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependency upon claim 1.
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 2, 4, and 8 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.
Regarding claim 2. Claim 1 requires a hole transport layer and claim 2, which depends on claim 1, requires a hole transport region including a hole injection layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof. It is unclear whether the hole transport region is a separate entity from the hole transport layer or if the hole transport region is synonymous with the hole transport layer.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and examiner has interpreted the claim language as the hole transport region may be a separate entity from the hole transport layer or the hole transport region is synonymous with the hole transport layer.
Regarding claim 4. Claim 1 requires an electron transport layer and claim 4, which depends on claim 1, requires an electron transport region including an electron injection layer, a hole blocking layer, or a combination thereof. It is unclear whether the electron transport region is a separate entity from the electron transport layer or if the electron transport region is synonymous with the electron transport layer.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and examiner has interpreted the claim language as the electron transport region may be a separate entity from the electron transport layer or the electron transport region is synonymous with the electron transport layer.
Regarding claim 8. The claim language “wherein an amount of dopant in the emission layer is in a range of about 1% to about 50%, as a volume ratio” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the volume ratio is relative to.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and examiner has interpreted the claim language as wherein an amount of dopant in the emission layer is in a range of about 1% to about 50%, as a volume relative to all the components or any subsets of the components of the light-emitting device.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakuma (US 2009/0243473 A1) in view of Liu (US 2022/0059788 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 12, Iwakuma teaches a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a second electrode facing the first electrode and an organic layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic layer includes an emission layer, a hole transport layer, and an electron transport layer (Iwakuma, page 4, paragraph 0044). Iwakuma also teaches the emission layer may include a dopant material and a host material, and two or more host materials may be used (Iwakuma, page 5, paragraph 0054). Iwakuma also teaches the light-emitting layer may comprise an electron transport host and a hole transport host (Iwakuma, page 4, paragraph 0046 and page 10, paragraph 0084).
Iwakuma also teaches that the hole transport layer preferably has a hole mobility of at least 10.4 cm2/Vs (Iwakuma, page 10, paragraph 0086) and the electron transport layer has an electron mobility of 2x10-5 cm2/Vs or greater (Iwakuma, page 3, paragraph 0033).
Iwakuma fails to teach wherein the electron mobility of the electron transport host compound is less than 1x10-8 cm2/Vs.
Liu teaches a light-emitting device including an anode, a light-emitting layer, and a cathode, wherein the light-emitting layer includes a first type host material and a second type host material, and one of the host type materials is a P-type material and the other host type material is a N-type material (Liu, page 1, paragraph 0006). Liu also teaches that a P-type host is a Hole type host and a N-type host is an electronic type host (Liu, page 3, paragraph 0030).
Liu also teaches that in an embodiment a hole mobility of the P-type material ranges from 10-8 to 10-4 cm2/Vs, and an electron mobility of the N-type material ranges from 10-8 to 10-4 cm2/Vs, thus, both holes and electrons have appropriate mobility in the light-emitting layer of the bipolar host material, which can improve the light-emitting efficiency of the device (Liu, page 5, paragraph 0045).
The electron transport host mobility range in the light emitting layer of the device of Liu is close to the range recited in instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
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 optimize the light-emitting device of Iwakuma such that the mobility of the electron transport host and the mobility of the hole transport host are each independently close to 10-8 cm2/Vs as reported by Liu. One would have been motivated to provide a light emitting-layer with a hole transport host with a hole mobility close to 10-8 cm2/Vs and an electron transport host with an electron mobility close to 10-8 cm2/Vs, so that both holes and electrons have appropriate mobility in the light-emitting layer and improve the light-emitting efficiency of the device as taught by Liu (Liu, page 5, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 2, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode (Iwakuma, page 4, paragraph 0044). Iwakuma also teaches that the organic layer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer (Iwakuma, page 4, paragraph 0044, page 5, paragraph 0067, organic layer IV, and page 10, paragraph 0086).
Regarding claim 4, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode (Iwakuma, page 4, paragraph 0044). Iwakuma also teaches that the interlayer further includes an electron transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein the electron transport region comprises an electron injection layer (Iwakuma, page 4, paragraph 0044, page 5, paragraph 0067, organic layer IV, and page 11, paragraph 0095).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 6, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Iwakuma further teaches that in a preferred embodiment the electron transport layer may contain a reducing dopant, capable of reducing an electron-transport compound, and that the reducing dopant may be a metal-containing material such as organic complexes of alkali metals and organic complexes of alkaline earth metals (Iwakuma, page 53, paragraph 0126).
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 select an alkali metal complex or an alkaline earth-metal complex as a reducing dopant, because one would have been choosing from a list of dopant types and taught by Iwakuma, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a dopant type useful in the electron transport layer of the device of Iwakuma in view of Liu and possessing the benefits taught by Iwakuma in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 7, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Iwakuma further teaches the light-emitting layer of the light-emitting device may include a dopant material, and the dopant material may be a phosphorescent material (Iwakuma, page 5, paragraph 0054, and page 6, paragraph 0077).
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 select a phosphorescent material as a dopant in the light emitting-layer of the device of Iwakuma in view of Liu, because one would have been choosing from a list of suitable dopant types and taught by Iwakuma, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a dopant type useful in the light-emitting device of Iwakuma in view of Liu and possessing the benefits taught by Iwakuma in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 8, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light emitting device of claim 1, as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Iwakuma also teaches a phosphorescent dopant may be present in the light emitting layer in range of about 0.1 to 70% by mass . Iwakuma further teaches that when the content of the phosphorescent compound is less than 0.1% by mass, light emission is weak, and when the content of the phosphorescent compound is more than 70% by mass, a phenomenon called concentration quenching may proceed, thereby degrading the performance of the device (Iwakuma, page 10, paragraph 0083).
Due to the breadth of the prior art range and claimed range, and although Iwakuma teaches by mass percent, while applicant claims a volume ratio, the examiner asserts that there would be significant overlap of the taught range with the claimed range.
It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Iwakuma, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
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 optimize the light-emitting device of Iwakuma in view of Liu such that the mass ratio of dopant in the emission layer is in a range of about 0.1% to 70%. One would have been motivated to provide a light emitting-layer with a ratio of dopant in a range of about 0.1% to 70% as a mass ratio, so that light emission is strong and device performance is not deteriorated by concertation quenching as taught by Iwakuma (Iwakuma, page 10, paragraph 0083).
Regarding claim 9, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above regarding claim 1.
Liu also teaches a plurality of compounds useful as electron transport hosts (N-type hosts) in a light-emitting layer (Liu, page 5, paragraph 0041). The electron transport hosts taught by Liu include compounds with a triazine moiety.
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 select a host compound including a triazine moiety, such as the ones taught by Liu, as an electron transport host in the light emitting-layer of the device of Iwakuma in view of Liu, because one would have been choosing from a list of suitable electron transport hosts and taught by Liu, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of an electron transport host useful in the light-emitting device of Iwakuma in view of Liu and possessing the benefits taught by Liu in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 10, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above regarding claim 1.
Liu also teaches a plurality of compounds useful as electron transport hosts (N-type hosts) in a light-emitting layer (Liu, page 5, paragraph 0041). The electron transport hosts taught by Liu include compounds with a triazine moiety.
Liu teaches a specific electron transport host compound, shown below, herein referred to as Compound 1 (Liu, page 5, paragraph 0041).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 reads on instant Formula 1, wherein in instant Formula 1, X1 to X3 are each independently N, R11 and R12 are each independently an unsubstituted C6 heterocycloalkenyl group, and R10 is a substituted C6 cycloalkenyl group substituted with two R10a, wherein both R10a substituents are each independently a C6 arylalkyl group.
Compound 1 is one of a plurality of compounds taught by Liu with an electron mobility of the N-type material ranges from 10-8 to 10-4 cm2/Vs useful in a light-emitting layer. As discussed above regarding claim 1, Liu teaches that in an embodiment a hole mobility of the P-type material ranges from 10-8 to 10-4 cm2/Vs, and an electron mobility of the N-type material ranges from 10-8 to 10-4 cm2/Vs, thus, both holes and electrons have appropriate mobility in the light-emitting layer of the bipolar host material, which can improve the light-emitting efficiency of the device (Liu, page 5, paragraph 0045).
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 select Compound 1 as an electron transport host, because one would have been choosing from a list of electron transport hosts and taught by Liu, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of an electron transport host useful in the light-emitting layer of the device of Iwakuma in view of Liu and possessing the benefits taught by Liu in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 13, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above regarding claim 1.
Liu also teaches a plurality of compounds useful as hole transport hosts (P-type hosts) in a light-emitting layer (Liu, page 4, paragraph 0040). The hole transport hosts taught by Liu include compounds with a carbazole moiety.
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 select a host compound including a carbazole moiety, such as the ones taught by Liu, as a hole transport host in the light emitting-layer of the device of Iwakuma in view of Liu, because one would have been choosing from a list of suitable hole transport hosts and taught by Liu, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a hole transport host useful in the light-emitting device of Iwakuma in view of Liu and possessing the benefits taught by Liu in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Regarding claim 14, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1 as described above regarding claim 1.
Liu also teaches that the mole ratio of the electron transport host to the hole transport host may range from 4:1 to 1:4, therefore the materials have a suitable proportion, thus exciton quenching can be reduced and light efficiency of the device is improved (Liu, page 5, paragraph 0043).
Due to the breadth of the claimed range, and although Liu teaches the ratio of electron transport host to hole transport host as a mole ratio, the examiner asserts that there would be significant overlap of the taught range with the claimed range.
It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Liu, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
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 optimize the light-emitting device of Iwakuma in view of Liu such that the ratio of electron transport host to hole transport host in the emission layer is in a mole ratio of 4:1 to 1:4. One would have been motivated to provide a light emitting-layer with an electron transport host to hole transport host mole ratio of 4:1 to 1:4 to reduce exciton quenching and improve the light efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1 as described above regarding claim 1.
Iwakuma also teaches the thickness of the light-emitting layer is preferably 20nm or more (reading on the claimed “the thickness of the emission layer is in a range of about 50 angstroms to about 1,000 angstroms) (Iwakuma, page 10, paragraph 0085).
Iwakuma also teaches the thickness of the electron transport layer is preferably 0.1 to 100nm (Iwakuma, page 53, paragraph 0125). Because instant claim 15 defines the thickness of the layers but does not compositionally differentiate the layers, the hole blocking, electron transport, and electron injection layers are interpreted as sub-layers of the electron transporting layer of Iwakuma and can be selected to have thicknesses within the claimed range.
Iwakuma further teaches an example of a device, wherein the hole transporting layer has a thickness of 95 nm (Iwakuma, page 61, paragraph 0177). Because instant claim 15 defines the thickness of the layers but does not compositionally differentiate the layers, the hole injection, hole transport, and electron blocking layers are interpreted as sub-layers of the host transporting layer of Iwakuma and can be selected to have thicknesses within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, although the instant claim is drawn to an apparatus, the only positive limitation of the claimed apparatus is light-emitting device of claim 1. Claim 18 does not add any further structural or functional limitations to the device of claim 1. Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above, and does not include any components that would make it unfit for use as an apparatus. Therefore, the light-emitting deice of claim 1 may be considered an apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above regarding claim 1.
Iwakuma further teaches the light-emitting device can be applied to fields including various displays elements, displays, backlights, illumination light sources, markings, signboards, and the interior (Iwakuma, page 61, paragraph 0183).
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 include the light-emitting device of Iwakuma in view
of Liu in a display device as taught by Iwakuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, in order to make use of the light-emitting device of Iwakuma in view of Liu for common end use applications in a commercial setting.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakuma (US 2009/0243473 A1) in view of Liu (US 2022/0059788 A1), and further in view of Nishita (US 7,763,364 B2) as evidenced by Mityashin (Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 053305 (2012)).
Regarding claim 3, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the organic layer further includes a hole transport region between the first electrode and the emission layer, wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer (Iwakuma, page 4, paragraph 0044, page 5, paragraph 0067, organic layer IV, and page 10, paragraph 0086).
Nishita teaches a light-demitting device comprising at least a light-emitting layer between a pair of electrodes, and a hole transport layer between the light-emitting layer and an anode of the pair of electrodes (Nishita, column 2, paragraph lines 30-37). Nishita also teaches that an inorganic or organic electron-accepting dopant may be introduced into a positive hole-injection layer or hole-transport layer for the function of oxidizing an organic compound (Nishita, column 5, lines 7-11). Furthermore, Nishita teaches a specific light emitting device wherein the hole injection layer comprises F4-TCNQ (Nishita, column 43, lines 6-11), a p-type dopant described in the instant specification (instant specification, page 30, paragraphs 00178-00184).
Nishita does not explicitly say the electron-accepting dopant is a p-type dopant, however Mityashin teaches that efficient p-dopants must be strong electron acceptors (Mityashin, page 2, paragraph 2). Based on Mityashin’s teachings, the electron-accepting dopant of Nishita is a p-type dopant.
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 include an electron-accepting dopant, such as F4-TCNQ, in the hole injection layer in the light-emitting device of Iwakuma in view of Liu, because one would have expected the elements of Iwakuma in view of Liu and further in view of Nishita to maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of oxidizing the organic compound in the hole injection layer. See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakuma (US 2009/0243473 A1) in view of Liu (US 2022/0059788 A1), in view of Nishita (US 7,763,364 B2), and further in view of Sohn (US 9,900,979 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Iwakuma in view of Liu and further in view of Nishita teaches the light-emitting device of claim 3 but fails to teach wherein the p-dopant comprises one of instant Compounds P1 to P6.
Sohn teaches a conductor including a substrate, a first conductive layer, and a second conductive layer, wherein the first conductive layer includes two or more islands including graphene and a P-type dopant (Sohn, column 1, lines 53-59).
Sohn also teaches the P-type dopant may be tetrakis(dimethylamino)ethylene (TDAE) (Sohn, column 2, lines 1-8), which is the same as instant compound P1.
Sohn further teaches a specific embodiment (Fig. 8) of a touch screen panel including a conductor (11), a substrate (100), a first conductive layer (110), and a second conductive layer (120) (Sohn, column 13, lines 53-56). Furthermore, Sohn teaches the conductor can be applied to transparent electrode but may be used as an electrode for other electronic devices, such as an anode or a cathode for an organic light emitting device (Sohn, columns 13, lines 61-67, and column 14, line 1).
Sohn teaches the conductor of the invention provides improved optical properties and mechanical flexibility, and high electrical conductivity and reliability (Sohn, column 1, lines 46-48).
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 incorporate the conductor of Sohn, comprising graphene and TDAE as a P-dopant, as an anode in the device of Iwakuma in view of Liu and further in view of Nishita, because one would have expected the elements of Iwakuma in view of Liu, Nishita, and further in view of Sohn to maintain their respective properties or functions after they have been combined, and this would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device with improved optical properties and mechanical flexibility, and high electrical conductivity and reliability . See MPEP 2143.I.(A).
The resulting device comprises an anode, including a conductor layer containing TDAE between the anode and the emission layer, wherein the conductor layer containing TDAE is equated with a hole injection layer because the layer is disposed between the anode and the emission layer such that holes must be injected into the neighboring layer from the conductor layer.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakuma (US 2009/0243473 A1) in view of Liu (US 2022/0059788 A1), and further in view of Karg (US 2010/0001301 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above regarding claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the light-emitting device further comprises at least one of a capping layer outside the first electrode and a second capping layer outside the second electrode, and wherein a refractive index of the first capping layer and/or the second capping layer is each independently greater than or equal to about 1.6.
Karg teaches an OLED including a first electrode, a second electrode, at least one layer of organic material arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode, and a dielectric capping layer arranged on the second electrode opposite the first electrode (Karg, Abstract). Karg also teaches that suitable materials for capping layers have a refractive index between 1.6 and 4, and that these materials in the capping layer provide an improvement regarding the reduction of the reflectance of the outer surface of the capping layer and regarding the increase of the transmittance of the capping layer (Karg, page 4, paragraph 0037).
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 provide the device of Iwakuma in view of Liu with a capping layer with a refractive index of 1.6 or more as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire to predictably produce an OLED with a reduction of the reflectance of the outer surface of the capping layer and increasing the transmittance of the capping layer as taught by Karg (Karg, page 4, paragraph 0037).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwakuma (US 2009/0243473 A1) in view of Liu (US 2022/0059788 A1), and further in view of Jeong (US 2017/0162796 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Iwakuma in view of Liu teaches the light-emitting device of claim 1, as described above regarding claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the device further comprises a thin-film transistor, wherein the thin-film transistor includes a source electrode and a drain electrode, and the first electrode of the light-emitting device is electrically connected to at least one of the source electrode and the drain electrode.
Jeong teaches OLED devices (Jeong, Abstract). Jeong further teaches the OLEDs may be part of an electronic apparatus comprising a thin-film transistor (Jeong, page 36, paragraph 0199). Jeong also teaches the thin film transistor includes a gate electrode, a source electrode, an activation layer and a drain electrode (Jeong, page 36, paragraph 0203). Jeong teaches that the first electrode of the OLED is connected to the drain electrode (Jeong, page 36, paragraph 0205).
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 the light emitting device of Iwakuma in view of Liu in a thin film transistor device with the structure claimed because Jeong teaches this application and device structure was known as predictably suitable for OLED devices prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEILI DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1667. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30AM-5:00PM, Fr:7:30am-4:00pm.
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.
/K.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
