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 .
Status of the Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment received on 1/6/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 1, line 9: delete “HOMO” and insert --Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO)--.
Re claim 4, line 2: delete “LUMO” and insert --Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. 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.
In particular, claim 1, line 7 cites “a guest material doped in the exciplex” is not clear because of generic limitation “a guest material” & the claim does not clearly specify which kind of material the guest material is. For examination purpose, par. [0015] will be used to consider “the guest material”.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Applicant is suggested to revise and clarify the claim(s) to avoid any further confusions.
For best understanding and examination purpose, the claim(s) will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20210072883A, English translation provided with IDS) in view of Qiu et al. (CN 111969119A, English translation attached).
Re claim 1, Lee teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-2, pages 1-74, an organic electroluminescent device, comprising: an anode (110) and a cathode (170) disposed opposite to each other, a light emitting layer (140) located between the anode (110) and the cathode (170), an electron blocking layer (210, 220) located between the light emitting layer (140) and the anode (110), and a hole transport layer (130) located between the electron blocking layer (210, 220) and the anode (110); wherein:
an electron mobility of the hole transport layer (130) is greater than an electron mobility of the electron blocking layer (210, 220), an absolute value of a difference between an HOMO value of the hole transport layer (130) and an HOMO value of the electron blocking layer (210, 220) is greater than or equal to 0.08 eV and less than or equal to 0.3 eV, and the triplet energy level of the electron blocking layer is greater than 2.4 eV (e.g., based on/result of similar applied materials of layer 130 (e.g., NPB), layers 210, 220 (e.g., Formular 1 or 2, compounds 10-122, 10-123 and/or 10-125)).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not teach the light emitting layer comprises: an exciplex formed by mixing an electron-type host material and a hole-type host material, and a guest material doped in the exciplex; and a triplet energy level of the guest material is less than a triplet energy level of the electron blocking layer.
Qiu teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1-3, page 5, the light emitting layer (103) comprises: an exciplex formed by mixing an electron-type host material and a hole-type host material, and a guest material doped in the exciplex.
As taught by Qiu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the light emitting layer comprises: an exciplex formed by mixing an electron-type host material and a hole-type host material, and a guest material doped in the exciplex as claimed, because it aids in improving the performance and the efficiency and service life the formed organic device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Qiu in combination with Lee due to above reason.
Lee/Qiu does not explicitly teach a triplet energy level of the guest material is less than a triplet energy level of the electron blocking layer.
Lee/Qiu does teach similar materials of the guest material (see Qiu’s teaching) & the electron blocking layer (see Lee’s teaching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lee/Qiu to obtain a triplet energy level of the guest material is less than a triplet energy level of the electron blocking layer as claimed, because it aids in achieving desired organic device with improved performance and efficiency.
Re claims 2-5 & 13, Lee/Qiu does not explicitly teach a ratio of the electron mobility of the hole transport layer to the electron mobility of the electron blocking layer is between 1 and 104; the electron mobility of the hole transport layer is 10-5cm2/(V.s) to 10-3cm2/(V.s), and the electron mobility of the electron blocking layer is 10-7cm2/(V.s) to 10-5cm2/(V.s); an absolute value of a difference between an LUMO value of the electron blocking layer and an LUMO value of the hole-type host material is greater than 0.3 eV; an absolute value of a difference between an HOMO value of the hole-type host material and an HOMO value of the electron-type host material is greater than or equal to 0.25 eV and less than or equal to 0.75 eV; and an energy level difference between a triplet energy level of the exciplex and a singlet energy level of the exciplex is less than or equal to 0.1 eV.
Lee does teach the electron mobility of the hold transporting layer (130) and electron mobility of the electron blocking layer (210, 220); LUMO & HOMO values of the electron blocking layer (210, 220) and the hole-type/electron-type host materials (see Qiu’s teaching & claim 1 discussed above) & the exciplex (see Qiu’s teaching).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular ratio/electron mobility/absolute value of a difference/energy level difference, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the ratio/electron mobility/absolute value of a difference/energy level difference are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the ratio/electron mobility/absolute value of a difference/energy level difference is for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another ratio/electron mobility/absolute value of a difference/energy level difference. Indeed, it has been held that mere ratio/electron mobility/absolute value of a difference limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed ratio/electron mobility/absolute value of a difference/energy level difference, because a change in ratio/electron mobility/absolute value/energy level difference would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Re claims 6 & 7, Lee teaches a reflective index of the electrode blocking layer (210, 220) is greater than a reflective index of the hole transport layer (130); wherein a reflective index of the hole transport layer (130) is 1.7 to 1.8, and a reflective index of the electron blocking layer (210, 220) is 1.8 to 2.0 (e.g., based on similar teaching materials of hole transporting/electron blocking layers as the present invention).
Re claim 8, Lee teaches, pages 24-67, a structural general formula of a material of the electron blocking layer (210, 220) is
PNG
media_image2.png
448
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Arr-Ar3 are C1-C5 alkyl substituted or unsubstituted C6-C30 aryl or heteroaryl group, C3-C10 cycloalkyl substituted or unsubstituted C6-C30 aryl or heteroaryl group; X is 0, S, C, Si or N-R; and R is alkyl or cycloalkyl substituted or unsubstituted phenylene, biphenyl or terphenyl.
Re claim 9, Lee teaches, pages 24-67, the material of the electrode blocking layer (210, 220) is
PNG
media_image3.png
674
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claims 10 & 11, in combination cited above, Qiu teaches, based on disclosed structural formulas, Figs. 1-3, pages 5-8, wherein a structural formula of the hole-type host material is
PNG
media_image4.png
142
457
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are alkyl and aryl groups; and Ari-Ar3 are substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl groups; and
wherein a structural general formula of the electron-type host material is
PNG
media_image5.png
90
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein L1-L3 are substituted or unsubstituted aryl or heteroaryl groups.
Re claim 12, in combination cited above, Qiu teaches, page 8, the guest material is an organic metal complex (e.g., organometallic complex), and the metal (Ir, Pl) comprises iridium or platinum.
Re claim 14, in combination cited above, Qiu teaches, pages 5-8, an emission spectrum peak of the hole-host material is less than an emission spectrum peak of the electron-type host material; an emission spectrum peak of the exciplex is greater than or equal to 500 nm and less than or equal to 580 nm (based on the teaching selected materials).
Re claim 15, in combination cited above, Qiu teaches, page 8, a thickness of the light emitting layer (130) is 20nm to 70nm, and a doping proportion of the guest material in the light emitting layer (103) is 2% to 10%.
Re claim 17, Lee teaches the light emitting layer is a red light emitting layer (page 7) or a green light emitting layer.
Re claim 18, in combination cited above, Qiu teaches, page 9, a display panel, comprising: a plurality of sub-pixel units, wherein at least some of the sub-pixel units comprise the organic electroluminescent device (see claim 1 discussed above).
Re claim 20, in combination cited above, Qiu teaches, pages 9-10, a display device, comprising the display panel.
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as modified by Qiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 2014/0225100).
Re claim 16, Lee teaches, Fig. 1, a hole injection layer (120) located between the anode (110) and the hole transport layer (130).
Lee/Qiu does not explicitly teach a hole blocking layer located between the light emitting layer and the cathode, an electron transport layer located between the hole blocking layer and the cathode, and an electron injection layer located between the electron transport layer and the cathode.
Yokoyama teaches, Fig. 1, [0060], a hole blocking layer located between the light emitting layer (5) and the cathode (8), an electron transport layer (6) located between the hole blocking layer and the cathode (8), and an electron injection layer (7) located between the electron transport layer (6) and the cathode (8).
As taught by Yokoyama, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain a hole blocking layer as claimed, because it aids in achieving organic device with improved light extraction efficiency.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Yokoyama in combination with Lee/Qiu due to above reason.
Lee/Qiu/Yokoyama does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the hole injection layer is 5nm to 20nm, a thickness of the hole transport layer is 80nm to 150nm, a thickness of the hole blocking layer is 5nm to 20nm, a thickness of the electron transport layer is 20nm to 50nm, and a thickness of the electron injection layer is 1nm to 10nm.
Lee teaches thickness of layer in nm (page 15) (see asl Qiu’s page 8 & Yokoyama’s [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lee/Qiu/Yokoyama to obtain a thickness of the hole injection layer is 5nm to 20nm, a thickness of the hole transport layer is 80nm to 150nm, a thickness of the hole blocking layer is 5nm to 20nm, a thickness of the electron transport layer is 20nm to 50nm, and a thickness of the electron injection layer is 1nm to 10nm as claimed, because it aids in achieving desired thickness of each layer in the formed device. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 2/23/26