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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 03/09/2026, which amends claims 1, 8, 15, and 16. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 03/09/2026, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-19 as being unpatentable over Mizuki et al. (US 2011/0017983 A1) in view of Fennimore et al. (US 2016/0315159 A1), claims 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Mizuki and Fennimore above, and further in view of Tomotsugu et al. (JP 2017/066289 A), and of claim 20 as being unpatentable over Mizuki and Fennimore above, and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1) are withdrawn by the Office.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 9-20 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.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim contains the limitation that a1 is an integer of 1 to 4. This introduces uncertainty because the structures modified by a1 (R14 or R16) is attached to an organic moiety with 5 possible valence positions. Thus, it is unclear what, if anything, is present at the fifth, open valence.
In continuing examination, a1 is being interpreted as an integer of 1 to 5.
With respect to claim 6, the claim contains the limitation that a2 is an integer of 1 to 4. This introduces uncertainty because the structure modified by a2 (R16) is attached to an organic moiety with 5 possible valence positions. It is unclear what, if anything, is present at the fifth, open valence.
In continuing examination, a2 is being interpreted as an integer of 1 to 5.
With respect to claim 15, the claim contains the limitation that a1 is an integer of 1 to 4. This introduces uncertainty because the structure modified by a1 (R14 or R16) is attached to an organic moiety with 5 valence positions. It is unclear what, if anything, is present at the fifth, open valence.
In continuing examination, a1 is being interpreted as an integer of 1 to 5.
With respect to claim 16, the claim contains the limitation that a1 is an integer of 1 to 4. This introduces uncertainty because the structure modified by a1 (R16) is attached to an organic moiety with 5 valence positions. It is unclear what, if anything, is present at the fifth, open valence.
In continuing examination, a1 is being interpreted as an integer of 1 to 5.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 2000/282025 A, using the provided translation for references) in view of Seki et al. (JP 2010/062442 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Okada discloses Example 302 in Table 3 (paragraphs 0110 and 0111), which is a light-emitting element (paragraph 0113, line 1) formed from a composition comprising blue light-emitting material B, the solvent 1,2-dichloromethane (methylene chloride), and example polymer 20, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
206
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
179
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
532
976
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The blue light-emitting material B meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Y is a substituted C6 aryl group and o is 2. The methylene chloride solvent meets the requirements of the solvent of the instant claim.
Okada also teaches that the polymer of the composition can be derived from general equation (IV) (paragraph 0019), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
498
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, R4e is a substituent (paragraph 0020), such as phenyl (paragraph 0021, line 1), 4r, 4p and 4q are 0 (paragraph 0026) so that R4f, R4c and R4d are not present, m4 is an integer of 30 or more (paragraph 0048) and L4 is preferably an arylamine group (-N(R1)-, arylene, and combinations thereof, paragraph 0041, lines 2-3).
Okada includes each element above, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Okada being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known polymer combination from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the polymer of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a composition which is capable of forming a light-emitting element with low-voltage, high brightness light emission, good planar luminescence, and good white luminescence (paragraph 0113), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, while Okada teaches that L4 can be an arylamine, Okada does not fairly suggest such a selection.
In analogous art, Seki teaches an organic light-emitting element with high efficiency, high brightness, and extremely high lifetime light output (paragraph 0008) as a result of including an arylamine polymer with a fluorenyl substituent (paragraph 0059).
Seki teaches that fluorenyl skeletons have high charge transport capacity as basic skeletons, and when included in an arylamine polymer, such structures have excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency. Additionally, the fluorenyl skeleton has a high glass transition temperature on an amino moiety which is part of the main chain of the polymer. In this way, the film forming properties of the polymer are improved, and crystallization is less likely to occur when organic light-emitting elements are fabricated, improving the service life of the devices (paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorenyl-substituted amine moiety of Seki as the amine moiety in the polymer component of the composition of Okada in order to obtain a polymer which has excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency, high glass transition temperature, which improves the film forming properties of the composition, and decrease the likelihood of crystallization during fabrication, which improves the service life of devices comprising the film, as taught by Seki.
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of the instant high-molecular-weight compound of Formula 1 when X is represented by Formula 2c, m is 1, k is 0 and R1 is not present, Ar is C12 aryl (fluorenyl) group, l is 0 and R2 is not present, and n is an integer greater than 30. In Formula 2c, a1 is 5 and R14 is a hydrogen atom.
With respect to claim 2, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, and Okada also teaches that the polymer has between 10 and 10,000 repeating units (paragraph 0048).
Examiner notes that the repeating unit of Okada and Seki, which is discussed above, has a molecular weight of approximately 679 Daltons. Guided by the number of repeating units taught by Okada, a polymer of between 10 and 10,000 of the repeating units discussed above has a molecular weight of between 6,790 and 6,790,000.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the molecular weight of the compound in the prior art overlaps with the molecular weight of the instant claim. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 3, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, and the compound of Formula 2 has a molecular weight of approximately 511.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the molecular weight of the compound in the prior art overlaps with the molecular weight of the instant claim. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 6, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, and Ar is represented by Formula 3b when R17 and R18 are each a C1 alkyl group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, and Y is represented by Formula 4a when R19 is a substituted alkylene group and a substituted C6 arylene (phenylene), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 8, Okada discloses Example 302 in Table 3 (paragraphs 0110 and 0111), which is a light-emitting element (paragraph 0113, line 1) formed from a composition comprising blue light-emitting material B, the solvent 1,2-dichloromethane (methylene chloride), and an exemplary polymer, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
206
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
179
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
532
976
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The blue light-emitting material B meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Y is a substituted C6 aryl group and o is 2. The methylene chloride solvent mees the requirements of the solvent of the instant claim.
Okada also discloses the polymer of the composition may be represented by general equation (IV), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
498
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, R4e is a substituent (paragraph 0020), such as phenyl (paragraph 0021, line 1), 4r, 4p and 4q are 0 so that R4f, R4c and R4d are not present, m4 is an integer of 30 or more (paragraph 0048) and L4 is preferably an arylamine group (-N(R1)-, arylene, and combinations thereof, paragraph 0041, lines 2-3).
Okada includes each element above, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Okada being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known polymer combination from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the polymer of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a composition which is capable of forming a light-emitting element with low-voltage, high brightness light emission, good planar luminescence, and good white luminescence (paragraph 0113), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, while Okada teaches that L4 can be an arylamine, Okada does not fairly suggest such a selection.
In analogous art, Seki teaches an organic light-emitting element with high efficiency, high brightness, and extremely high lifetime light output (paragraph 0008) as a result of including an arylamine polymer with a fluorenyl substituent (paragraph 0059).
Seki teaches that fluorenyl skeletons have high charge transport capacity as basic skeletons, and when included in an arylamine polymer, such structures have excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency. Additionally, the fluorenyl skeleton has a high glass transition temperature on an amino moiety which is part of the main chain of the polymer. In this way, the film forming properties of the polymer are improved, and crystallization is less likely to occur when organic light-emitting elements are fabricated, improving the service life of the devices (paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorenyl-substituted amine moiety of Seki as the amine moiety in the polymer component of the composition of Okada in order to obtain a polymer which has excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency, high glass transition temperature, which improves the film forming properties of the composition, and decrease the likelihood of crystallization during fabrication, which improves the service life of devices comprising the film, as taught by Seki.
Such a modification produces instant Compound 9.
With respect to claim 10, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, and the solvent is methylene chloride, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 11, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, and the ratio of the polymer of Formula 1 to Compound B of Formula 2 is approximately 12:1 (37 mg of polymer and 3 mg of compound B, paragraph 0106).
With respect to claim 12, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
In an exemplary embodiment, Okada uses 37 mg of polymer, 3 mg of compound B, and 3 mL of methylene chloride (3.975 g at 25 °C) for a concentration of approximately 1%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a concentration of approximately 1%, as taught by Okada.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. In the instant case, the claimed percent concentration overlaps in range with the percent concentration taught by the prior art. Thus, as the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is present.
With respect to claim 15, Okada discloses a light-emitting element comprising an organic layer (paragraph 0087) comprising blue light-emitting material B (Example 302 in Table 3, paragraphs 0110 and 0111), which is pictured below, and polymer compounds represented by general equation (IV) (paragraph 0019), which is also pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
206
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
498
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The blue light-emitting material B meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Y is a substituted C6 aryl group and o is 2.
In general equation (IV), R4e is a substituent (paragraph 0020), such as phenyl (paragraph 0021, line 1), 4r, 4p and 4q are 0 so that R4f, R4c and R4d are not present, m4 is an integer of 30 or more (paragraph 0048) and L4 is preferably an arylamine group (-N(R1)-, arylene, and combinations thereof, paragraph 0041, lines 2-3).
Okada includes each element above, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Okada being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known polymer combination from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the polymer of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a composition which is capable of forming a light-emitting element with low-voltage, high brightness light emission, good planar luminescence, and good white luminescence (paragraph 0113), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, while Okada teaches that L4 can be an arylamine, Okada does not fairly suggest such a selection.
In analogous art, Seki teaches an organic light-emitting element with high efficiency, high brightness, and extremely high lifetime light output (paragraph 0008) as a result of including an arylamine polymer with a fluorenyl substituent (paragraph 0059).
Seki teaches that fluorenyl skeletons have high charge transport capacity as basic skeletons, and when included in an arylamine polymer, such structures have excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency. Additionally, the fluorenyl skeleton has a high glass transition temperature on an amino moiety which is part of the main chain of the polymer. In this way, the film forming properties of the polymer are improved, and crystallization is less likely to occur when organic light-emitting elements are fabricated, improving the service life of the devices (paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorenyl-substituted amine moiety of Seki as the amine moiety in the polymer component of the composition of Okada in order to obtain a polymer which has excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency, high glass transition temperature, which improves the film forming properties of the composition, and decrease the likelihood of crystallization during fabrication, which improves the service life of devices comprising the film, as taught by Seki.
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of the instant high-molecular-weight compound of Formula 1 when X is represented by Formula 2c, m is 1, k is 0 and R1 is not present, Ar is C12 aryl (fluorenyl) group, l is 0 and R2 is not present, and n is an integer greater than 30. In Formula 2c, a1 is 5 and R14 is a hydrogen atom.
With respect to claims 16 through 19, Okada discloses Example 302 in Table 3 (paragraphs 0110 and 0111), which is a light-emitting element (paragraph 0113, line 1) comprising a pair of electrodes which are an anode and a cathode. Okada teaches that between the electrodes, the element can have an organic layer comprising a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer comprising the claimed composition (paragraph 0086), an emission layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer (paragraph 0087), and that the claimed composition includes blue light-emitting material B, the solvent 1,2-dichloromethane (methylene chloride), and example polymer 20, which are pictured below (paragraph 0110).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
179
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
532
976
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The blue light-emitting material B meets the requirements of instant Formula 2 when Y is a substituted C6 aryl group and o is 2.
Okada teaches that the light-emitting layer is formed using a solution process (spin-coating, paragraph 0093).
Okada also teaches that the polymer of the composition can be represented by general equation (IV), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image4.png
498
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In this formula, R4e is a substituent (paragraph 0020), such as phenyl (paragraph 0021, line 1), 4r, 4p and 4q are 0 so that R4f, R4c and R4d are not present, m4 is an integer of 30 or more (paragraph 0048) and L4 is preferably an arylamine group (-N(R1)-, arylene, and combinations thereof, paragraph 0041, lines 2-3).
Okada includes each element above, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Okada being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known polymer combination from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the polymer of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of a composition which is capable of forming a light-emitting element with low-voltage, high brightness light emission, good planar luminescence, and good white luminescence (paragraph 0113), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
However, while Okada teaches that L4 can be an arylamine, Okada does not fairly suggest such a selection.
In analogous art, Seki teaches an organic light-emitting element with high efficiency, high brightness, and extremely high lifetime light output (paragraph 0008) as a result of including an arylamine polymer with a fluorenyl substituent.
Seki teaches that fluorenyl skeletons have high charge transport capacity as basic skeletons, and when included in an arylamine polymer, such structures have excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency. Additionally, the fluorenyl skeleton has a high glass transition temperature on an amino moiety which is part of the main chain of the polymer. In this way, the film forming properties of the polymer are improved, and crystallization is less likely to occur when organic light-emitting elements are fabricated, improving the service life of the devices (paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorenyl-substituted amine moiety of Seki as the amine moiety in the polymer component of the composition of Okada in order to obtain a polymer which has excellent charge injection and transportability, which improves luminous efficiency, high glass transition temperature, which improves the film forming properties of the composition, and decrease the likelihood of crystallization during fabrication, which improves the service life of devices comprising the film, as taught by Seki.
Such a modification produces a compound which meets the requirements of the instant high-molecular-weight compound of Formula 1 when X is an azepine derivative, m is 1, k is 0 and R1 is not present, Ar is C12 aryl (fluorenyl) group, l is 0 and R2 is not present, and n is an integer greater than 30. In Formula 2c, a1 is 5 and R14 is a hydrogen atom.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 2000/282025 A, using the provided translation for references) and Seki et al. (JP 2010/062442 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Fennimore et al. (US 2016/0315259 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Okada nor Seki teach the composition comprises a non-arylamine based low-molecular weight compound of the instant claim.
In analogous art, Fennimore teaches a composition for use in an electronic device comprising an electroactive material (a high-molecular weight polymer, paragraphs 0074 and 0099), a facilitation additive, and a liquid medium (such as toluene, paragraph 0254) (abstract).
Fennimore teaches that the facilitation additive is a small molecule which aids in the formation of the electroactive layer (paragraph 0175).
Fennimore gives an example of a suitable facilitation additive, FA-13, on page 28, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
480
603
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of parent Formula 2 when Y is a substituted or unsubstituted C6 carbocyclic group and o is an integer of 2 or more.
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and utilities. When compounds are homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups), they are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties (see MPEP 2144.09).
The facilitative additive of Fennimore has two n-hexyl substituents on the center phenylene group, while Compound A1 of the instant claim has two n-octyl group on the center phenylene group.
It is examiner’s position that the two compounds, being homologs, are of sufficiently close structural similarity, differing only in the successive addition of the same chemical group, and possessing the same utility as an additive in the organic layer of an electronic device, that they represent a prima facie case of obviousness.
Given the formula and teachings of Fennimore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a homolog of the facilitative additive FA-13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the homolog to also be useful as a facilitative additive in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Okada and Seki and possess the properties taught by Fennimore.
It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the facilitation additive of Fennimore in the organic layer of Okada and Seki in order to prevent mixing of the layers (paragraphs 0405-0410) and aid in the formation of the electroactive layer (paragraph 0175), as taught by Fennimore.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 2000/282025 A, using the provided translation for references) and Seki et al. (JP 2010/062442 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Tomotsugu et al. (JP 2017/066289 A, using the previously provided translation for references).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Okada and Seki teach the composition of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, neither Okada nor Seki teach a method involving drying the polymer composition at a temperature of about 150 °C to about 300 °C for about 1 minute to about 2 hours.
In analogous art, Tomotsugu teaches a polymer composition (paragraph 0073) wherein the polymer is dissolved in a solvent such as methylene chloride (paragraph 0074, line 14).
Tomotsugu also teaches drying the polymer at 220 °C for 10 minutes (paragraph 0115).
While Tomotsugu does not teach a specific motivation for drying the polymer at this temperature and for this duration of time, Tomotsugu is effective in demonstrating that a methylene chloride solvent can be removed and a polymer dried under these conditions.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Tomotsugu and dry the composition of Okada and Seki at 220 °C for 10 minutes, as taught by Tomotsugu.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (JP 2000/282025 A, using the provided translation for references) and Seki et al. (JP 2010/062442 A, using the provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Matsudate et al. (US 2005/0236970 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Okada and Seki teach the organic light-emitting device of claim 16, as discussed above. However, neither Okada nor Seki teach nor fairly suggest a source electrode, a drain electrode, an active layer, and a gate electrode, and the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor, although this is how active-matrix OLED displays are typically implemented.
Okada, Seki, and Matsudate are of analogous art as they are all drawn to organic light emitting devices. Matsudate teaches a design for an organic electroluminescent display which allows the device to be controlled and driven (abstract, and paragraphs 0003 and 0062). Matsudate teaches that the taught configuration of a source electrode, a drain electrode, an active layer, and a gate electrode, wherein the first electrode of the organic light-emitting device is electrically connected to one selected from the source electrode and the drain electrode of the thin-film transistor is applicable to general organic electroluminescent displays to achieve high manufacturing yields (paragraphs 0062-0069, and Fig. 11)
In view of the motivation of using the display component configuration of Matsudate as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the display device of Okada and Seki using the component configuration of Matsudate in order to provide an organic electroluminescent display and achieve high manufacturing yields and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tomotsugu et al. (JP 2019/116588 A) – teaches relevant acridine polymers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights