DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/11/2025 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for specific fluorescent light-emitting material with a maximum peak wavelength in the range of 440 to 470 nm, does not reasonably provide enablement for any fluorescent light-emitting material with maximum peak wavelength in the range of 440 to 470 nm. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to: (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Applying these factors to claim 1, it is noted that the specification provides no direction or working examples (cf. factors (f) and (g)) for any fluorescent light-emitting material with a maximum peak in the range of 440 to 470 nm other than 3,10-bis[N-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-2-yl)-N-phenylamino]naphtho[2,3-b;6, 7-b']bisbenzofuran (3,10PCA2Nbf(IV)-02). i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Thus, the only portion of the specification that describes the light-emitting material recited in claim 1 is Paragraph [0396] and this paragraph names only 3,10-bis[N-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-2-yl)-N-phenylamino]naphtho[2,3-b;6, 7-b']bisbenzofuran and not any other light-emitting material.
Furthermore, in view of the breadth of claim 1 (cf. factor (a)) which encompasses innumerable fluorescent light-emitting materials and organic compounds such as 9,9’-spirobifluorene, 4-(dicyanomethylene)-2-methyl-6-[4-(dimethylaminostyryl)-4H-pyran], tris(8-hydroxyquinolinato)aluminum, etc., all of which are mutually structurally different, it is urged that the quantity of experimentation (cf. factor (h)) involved in order to reach a usable embodiment would be great. In light of the above factors, it is concluded that undue experimentation would be involved to make and use the invention as presently claimed.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteghamatian et al (US 6,225,467) in view of Hatakeyama et al (2019/0058124).
Regarding claim 1, Esteghamatian et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. a light-emitting device, comprising the following layers, in order of stacking (Col. 11 Lines 39-51 and Col.3 Lines 45-53):
substrate / anode / buffer layer / hole transport layer /
a light emitting layer / an electron transport layer / cathode,
where:
(a) the anode corresponds to the recited first electrode;
(b) the cathode corresponds to the recited second electrode;
(c) the light emitting layer corresponds to the recited first layer and is disposed between the first and second electrodes; and
(d) the electron transport layer corresponds to the recited second layer and is disposed between the light emitting layer, i.e. first layer, and the cathode, i.e. second electrode.
From the method of forming the disclosed organic light emitting device it is clear that the second electrode overlaps the first electrode as recited in the present claims Col. 30 Lines 45-67 and Col. 31 Lines 1-19). The light emitting layer comprises a fluorescence light emitting material (Column 11 Lines 25-41).
The electron transport, i.e. second layer, comprises the following compound (Col. 1 Lines 39-50 and Col.17 – Compound II-3):
PNG
media_image2.png
490
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula (Ge12):
PNG
media_image3.png
258
283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Q1 to Q3 are N; and
R203, R208, and R213 each represent a phenyl group, and each phenyl group possesses a single tert-butyl, i.e. C4 substituent.
Given that the compound possesses tert-butyl substituents, the compound comprises sp3 carbon atoms where the sp3 carbon atoms form a bond with other atoms by sp3 hybrid orbitals, i.e. the substituent possesses a central carbon atom with four (4) single bonds and three (3) of the single bonds are bonded to methyl or -CH3 groups, where each -CH3 group also comprises sp3 carbon atoms, as recited in the present claim.
The reference does not disclose that this compound has a first refractive index n1 with respect to light have the wavelength l1 and where the first refractive index n1 is from 1.4 to 1.75 as recited in the present claims. However, the reference teaches the claimed compound and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound disclosed by the reference. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compound.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a fluorescent light emitting material, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting material in the light emitting layer has a maximum peak at a wavelength l1, where l1 in the range of 440 to 470 nm as recited in the present claims.
Hatakeyama et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following fluorescent light emitting material (Abstract, [0001], and Pages 4 and 109 – Compound 1-26898):
PNG
media_image4.png
282
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound has an emission wavelength of 457 nm, within the recited range of 440 to 470 nm (Page 111 – Table 2 – Example 7). While the reference does not disclose that the compound is configured to emit photoluminescence light in a solution, given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, it is the Office’s position that the compound disclosed by the reference necessarily emits photoluminescence light in a solution.
The reference discloses that the use of the compound as a dopant results in a highly efficient delayed fluorescence organic electroluminescent element ([0386]).
Given that both Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising fluorescent dopant materials, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular fluorescent dopant as taught by Hatakeyama et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such dopants in the light emitting device disclosed by Esteghamatian et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Hatakeyama et al does not disclose that the compound has a FWHM of 10 to 35 nm. However, the reference teaches the claimed compound, and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a FWHM of 10 to 35 nm would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compound.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Esteghamatian et al discloses that the cathode, i.e. the second electrode, is formed from a magnesium silver alloy, i.e. the second electrode comprises silver as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the compound disclosed by Esteghamatian et al comprises 12 sp3 carbon atoms and a total of 51 carbon atoms. Accordingly, the sp3 carbon atoms comprise 23.5 % of all the carbon atoms, within the recited range of 10 to 60 %.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian discloses that the light emitting device comprises a substrate. Accordingly, the reference discloses a light emitting apparatus comprising the light emitting device and a substrate as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian et al discloses that the light emitting device comprises a glass substrate. Additionally, the reference discloses that he organic light emitting device can be used in flat-panel emissive display technologies (Col. 1 Lines 39- 50). Accordingly, the reference discloses a display device as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following light emitting material:
PNG
media_image4.png
282
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which comprises a diazabora-naphthoanthracene skeleton.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian discloses that the second layer is an electron transport layer.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
282
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which corresponds to 2,12-di(tert-butyl)-5,9-di(4-tert-butylphenyl)-N,N-diphenyl-5H,9H-[1,4]benzazaborino [2,3,4-kl]phenazaborin-7-amine.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Esteghamatian et al the substituents are tert-butyl groups, i.e. C4 alkyls.
Regarding claim 12, Esteghamatian et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. a light-emitting device, comprising the following layers, in order of stacking (Col. 11 Lines 39-51 and Col.3 Lines 45-53):
substrate / anode / buffer layer / hole transport layer /
a light emitting layer / an electron transport layer / cathode,
where:
(a) the anode corresponds to the recited first electrode;
(b) the cathode corresponds to the recited second electrode;
(c) the light emitting layer corresponds to the recited first layer and is disposed between the first and second electrodes; and
(d) the electron transport layer corresponds to the recited second layer and is disposed between the light emitting layer, i.e. first layer, and the cathode, i.e. second electrode.
From the method of forming the disclosed organic light emitting device it is clear that the second electrode overlaps the first electrode as recited in the present claims Col. 30 Lines 45-67 and Col. 31 Lines 1-19). The light emitting layer comprises a fluorescence light emitting material (Column 11 Lines 25-41).
The electron transport, i.e. second layer, comprises the following compound (Col. 1 Lines 39-50 and Col.17 – Compound II-3):
PNG
media_image2.png
490
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula (Ge12):
PNG
media_image3.png
258
283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Q1 to Q3 are N; and
R203, R208, and R213 each represent a phenyl group, and each phenyl group possesses a single tert-butyl, i.e. C4 substituent.
Given that the compound possesses tert-butyl substituents, the compound comprises sp3 carbon atoms where the sp3 carbon atoms form a bond with other atoms by sp3 hybrid orbitals., i.e. the substituent possesses a central carbon atom with four (4) single bonds and three (3) of the single bonds are bonded to methyl or -CH3 groups, where each -CH3 group also comprises sp3 carbon atoms, as recited in the present claim.
The reference does not disclose that this compound has a first refractive index n1 with respect to light have the wavelength l1 and where the first refractive index n1 is from 1.4 to 1.75 as recited in the present claims. However, the reference teaches the claimed compound and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound disclosed by the reference. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compound.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a fluorescent light emitting material, the reference does not disclose a diazabora-naphthoanthracene skeleton light emitting material with a maximum peak l1, in a blue wavelength range and an FWHM of 10 to 35 nm.
Hatakeyama et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following fluorescent light emitting material (Abstract, [0001], and Pages 4 and 109 – Compound 1-26898):
PNG
media_image4.png
282
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This compound has an emission wavelength of 457 nm, i.e. within the blue wavelength range (Page 111 – Table 2 – Example 7). While the reference does not disclose that the compound is configured to emit photoluminescence light in a solution, given that the reference discloses the identical compound recited in the present claims, it is the Office’s position that the compound disclosed by the reference necessarily emits photoluminescence light in a solution.
The reference does not disclose that this compound has a full width at half maximum FWHM greater than 10 to 35 nm. However, the reference teaches the claimed compound and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by the compounds disclosed by the reference. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compounds.
The reference discloses that the use of the compound as a dopant results in a highly efficient delayed fluorescence organic electroluminescent element ([0386]).
Given that both Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising fluorescent dopant materials, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular fluorescent dopant as taught by Hatakeyama et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such dopants in the light emitting device disclosed by Esteghamatian et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Esteghamatian et al discloses that the cathode, i.e. the second electrode, is formed from a magnesium silver alloy, i.e. the second electrode comprises silver as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the compound disclosed by Esteghamatian et al comprises 12 sp3 carbon atoms and a total of 51 carbon atoms. Accordingly, the sp3 carbon atoms comprise 23.5 % of all the carbon atoms, within the recited range of 10 to 60 %.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian discloses that the light emitting device comprises a substrate. Accordingly, the reference discloses a light emitting apparatus comprising the light emitting device and a substrate as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Hatakeyama et al discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
282
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which corresponds to 2,12-di(tert-butyl)-5,9-di(4-tert-butylphenyl)-N,N-diphenyl-5H,9H-[1,4]benzazaborino [2,3,4-kl]phenazaborin-7-amine.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian discloses that the second layer is an electron transport layer.
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Esteghamatian et al the substituents are tert-butyl groups, i.e. C4 alkyls.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteghamatian et al (US 6,225,467) and Hatakeyama et al (2019/0058124) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-21 above, and in view of Kang et al (US 2015/0376400).
The discussion with respect to Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al as set forth in Paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Esteghamatian et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a light emitting apparatus, the reference does not disclose a light device comprising a housing as recited in the present claims.
Kang et al discloses that generally, light emitting diodes form a light emitting diode package together with components such as a reflector, a reflector cup, a scrambler, and a housing so as to maximize optical efficiency through high reflectance ([0003]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device disclosed by Esteghamatian et al to include a housing in order to maximize the optical efficiency of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Esteghamatian et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteghamatian et al (US 6,225,467) and Hatakeyama et al (2019/0058124) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-21 above, and in view of Lee et al (US 2014/0239802).
The discussion with respect to Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al as set forth in Paragraph 8 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Esteghamatian et al does not disclose an electronic device comprising a microphone as recited in the present claims.
Lee et al discloses that when OLED devices are used in an electronic apparatus such as a smart phone, a microphone for inputting sound signal may be further disposed in the OLED devices ([0006]). In a conventional OLED device, additional space is typically provided in the OLED device to receive the microphone ([0006]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the organic light emitting device disclosed by Lee et al in an electronic apparatus such as a smart phone in order to obtain an electronic apparatus comprising a microphone, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known device element for their intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteghamatian et al (US 6,225,467) in view of Takeda et al (WO 2018/185571, see English language equivalent US 2021/0347782).
Regarding claim 1, Esteghamatian et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. a light-emitting device, comprising the following layers, in order of stacking (Col. 11 Lines 39-51 and Col.3 Lines 45-53):
substrate / anode / buffer layer / hole transport layer /
a light emitting layer / an electron transport layer / cathode,
where:
(a) the anode corresponds to the recited first electrode;
(b) the cathode corresponds to the recited second electrode;
(c) the light emitting layer corresponds to the recited first layer and is disposed between the first and second electrodes; and
(d) the electron transport layer corresponds to the recited second layer and is disposed between the light emitting layer, i.e. first layer, and the cathode, i.e. second electrode.
From the method of forming the disclosed organic light emitting device it is clear that the second electrode overlaps the first electrode as recited in the present claims Col. 30 Lines 45-67 and Col. 31 Lines 1-19). The light emitting layer comprises a fluorescence light emitting material (Column 11 Lines 25-41).
The electron transport, i.e. second layer, comprises the following compound (Col. 1 Lines 39-50 and Col.17 – Compound II-3):
PNG
media_image2.png
490
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula (Ge12):
PNG
media_image3.png
258
283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Q1 to Q3 are N; and
R203, R208, and R213 each represent a phenyl group, and each phenyl group possesses a single tert-butyl, i.e. C4 substituent.
Given that the compound possesses tert-butyl substituents, the compound comprises sp3 carbon atoms where the sp3 carbon atoms form a bond with other atoms by sp3 hybrid orbitals., i.e. the substituent possesses a central carbon atom with four (4) single bonds and three (3) of the single bonds are bonded to methyl or -CH3 groups, where each -CH3 group also comprises sp3 carbon atoms, as recited in the present claim.
The reference does not disclose that this compound has a first refractive index n1 with respect to light have the wavelength l1 and where the first refractive index n1 is from 1.4 to 1.75 as recited in the present claims. However, the reference teaches the claimed compound and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound disclosed by the reference. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compound.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a fluorescent light emitting material, the reference does not disclose that the light emitting material in the light emitting layer has a maximum peak at a wavelength l1, where l1 in the range of 440 to 470 nm as recited in the present claims.
Takeda et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following fluorescent light emitting material (Abstract, [0001], [0236], and Page 5 – Compounds vii and ix):
PNG
media_image5.png
368
678
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
and
PNG
media_image6.png
328
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where both compounds possess a naphthobenzofuran skeleton. Compound 3,10PCA2Nbf(IV)-02 has an emission wavelength in toluene of 448 and 476 nm ([0702]), and Compound 3,10FrA2Nbf(IV)-02 has an emission wavelength in toluene of 441 and 468 nm ([0683]), both within the recited range of 440 to 470 nm. Accordingly, the compounds are configured to emit photoluminescence light in a solution as recited in the present claims.
The reference discloses that the use of the compounds provides favorable chromaticity and emission efficiency (Abstract).
Given that both Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising fluorescent dopant materials, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular fluorescent dopant as taught by Takeda et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such dopants in the light emitting device disclosed by Esteghamatian et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Takeda et al does not disclose that the compound has a FWHM of 10 to 35 nm. However, the reference teaches the claimed compounds, and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compounds. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a FWHM of 10 to 35 nm would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compound.
Regarding claim 3, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Esteghamatian et al discloses that the cathode, i.e. the second electrode, is formed from a magnesium silver alloy, i.e. the second electrode comprises silver as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 5, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the compound disclosed by Esteghamatian et al comprises 12 sp3 carbon atoms and a total of 51 carbon atoms. Accordingly, the sp3 carbon atoms comprise 23.5 % of all the carbon atoms, within the recited range of 10 to 60 %.
Regarding claim 6, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian discloses that the light emitting device comprises a substrate. Accordingly, the reference discloses a light emitting apparatus comprising the light emitting device and a substrate as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 7, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian et al discloses that the light emitting device comprises a glass substrate. Additionally, the reference discloses that he organic light emitting device can be used in flat-panel emissive display technologies (Col. 1 Lines 39- 50). Accordingly, the reference discloses a display device as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 10, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Takeda discloses that the light emitting material comprises a naphthobenzofuran skeleton.
Regarding claim 11, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian discloses that the second layer is an electron transport layer.
Regarding claim 19, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Takeda et al discloses the following compounds:
PNG
media_image5.png
368
678
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
and
PNG
media_image6.png
328
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
which correspond to 3,10-bis[N-(dibenzofuran-3-yl)-N-phenylamino]naphtho[2,3-b;6,7-b′]bisbenzofurn and 3,10-bis[N-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-2-yl)-N-phenylamino]naphtho[2,3-b;6,7-b′]bisbenzofuran.
Regarding claim 20, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Esteghamatian et al the substituents are tert-butyl groups, i.e. C4 alkyls.
Regarding claim 12, Esteghamatian et al discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. a light-emitting device, comprising the following layers, in order of stacking (Col. 1 Lines 39-51 and Col.3 Lines 45-53):
substrate / anode / buffer layer / hole transport layer /
a light emitting layer / an electron transport layer / cathode,
where:
(a) the anode corresponds to the recited first electrode;
(b) the cathode corresponds to the recited second electrode;
(c) the light emitting layer corresponds to the recited first layer and is disposed between the first and second electrodes; and
(d) the electron transport layer corresponds to the recited second layer and is disposed between the light emitting layer, i.e. first layer, and the cathode, i.e. second electrode.
From the method of forming the disclosed organic light emitting device it is clear that the second electrode overlaps the first electrode as recited in the present claims Col. 30 Lines 45-67 and Col. 31 Lines 1-19). The light emitting layer comprises a fluorescence light emitting material (Column 11 Lines 25-41).
The electron transport, i.e. second layer, comprises the following compound (Col. 1 Lines 39-50 and Col.17 – Compound II-3):
PNG
media_image2.png
490
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to Formula (Ge12):
PNG
media_image3.png
258
283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
Q1 to Q3 are N; and
R203, R208, and R213 each represent a phenyl group, and each phenyl group possesses a single tert-butyl, i.e. C4 substituent.
Given that the compound possesses tert-butyl substituents, the compound comprises sp3 carbon atoms where the sp3 carbon atoms form a bond with other atoms by sp3 hybrid orbitals., i.e. the substituent possesses a central carbon atom with four (4) single bonds and three (3) of the single bonds are bonded to methyl or -CH3 groups, where each -CH3 group also comprises sp3 carbon atoms, as recited in the present claim.
The reference does not disclose that this compound has a first refractive index n1 with respect to light have the wavelength l1 and where the first refractive index n1 is from 1.4 to 1.75 as recited in the present claims. However, the reference teaches the claimed compound and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed compound. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by the compound disclosed by the reference. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed compound.
While the reference discloses that the light emitting layer comprises a fluorescent light emitting material, the reference does not disclose a diazabora-naphthoanthracene skeleton light emitting material with a maximum peak l1 in a blue wavelength range and an FWHM of 10 to 35 nm.
Takeda et al discloses an organic light emitting device where the light emitting layer comprises the following fluorescent light emitting material (Abstract, [0001], [0236] and Page 5 – Compounds vii and ix):
PNG
media_image5.png
368
678
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
and
PNG
media_image6.png
328
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where both compounds possess a naphthobenzofuran skeleton. Compound 3,10PCA2Nbf(IV)-02 has an emission wavelength in toluene of 448 and 476 nm ([0702]), and Compound 3,10FrA2Nbf(IV)-02 has an emission wavelength in toluene of 441 and 468 nm ([0683]), both within the blue wavelength. Accordingly, the compounds are configured to emit photoluminescence light in a solution as recited in the present claims.
The reference does not disclose that these compounds have a full width at half maximum FWHM greater than 10 to 35 nm. However, the reference teaches the claimed compounds and the original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties would naturally arise and be achieved by the compounds disclosed by the reference. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
The reference discloses that the use of the compounds provides favorable chromaticity and emission efficiency (Abstract).
Given that both Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al are drawn to organic light emitting devices comprising fluorescent dopant materials, in light of the particular advantages provided by the use and control of the particular fluorescent dopant as taught by Takeda et al, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such dopants in the light emitting device disclosed by Esteghamatian et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Esteghamatian et al discloses that the cathode, i.e. the second electrode, is formed from a magnesium silver alloy, i.e. the second electrode comprises silver as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 15, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the compound disclosed by Esteghamatian et al comprises 12 sp3 carbon atoms and a total of 51 carbon atoms. Accordingly, the sp3 carbon atoms comprise 23.5 % of all the carbon atoms, within the recited range of 10 to 60 %.
Regarding claim 16, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian discloses that the light emitting device comprises a substrate. Accordingly, the reference discloses a light emitting apparatus comprising the light emitting device and a substrate as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 17, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Takeda et al discloses the following compounds:
PNG
media_image7.png
328
728
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
and
PNG
media_image8.png
328
558
media_image8.png
Greyscale
,
which correspond to 3,10-bis[N-(dibenzofuran-3-yl)-N-phenylamino]naphtho[2,3-b;6,7-b′]bisbenzofurn and 3,10-bis[N-(9-phenyl-9H-carbazol-2-yl)-N-phenylamino]naphtho[2,3-b;6,7-b′]bisbenzofuran, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, Esteghamatian discloses that the second layer is an electron transport layer.
Regarding claim 21, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian and Hatakeyama et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, in the compound disclosed by Esteghamatian et al the substituents are tert-butyl groups, i.e. C4 alkyls.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteghamatian et al (US 6,225,467) and Takeda et al (WO 2018/185571, see English language equivalent US 2021/0347782) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-21 above, and in view of Kang et al (US 2015/0376400).
The discussion with respect to Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al as set forth in Paragraph 11 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 8, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Esteghamatian et al discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. a light emitting apparatus, the reference does not disclose a light device comprising a housing as recited in the present claims.
Kang et al discloses that generally, light emitting diodes form a light emitting diode package together with components such as a reflector, a reflector cup, a scrambler, and a housing so as to maximize optical efficiency through high reflectance ([0003]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light device disclosed by Esteghamatian et al to include a housing in order to maximize the optical efficiency of the organic light emitting device disclosed by Esteghamatian et al with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteghamatian et al (US 6,225,467) and Takeda et al (WO 2018/185571, see English language equivalent US 2021/0347782) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-21 above, and in view of Lee et al (US 2014/0239802).
The discussion with respect to Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al as set forth in Paragraph 11 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 9, the combined disclosures of Esteghamatian et al and Takeda et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Esteghamatian et al does not disclose an electronic device comprising a microphone as recited in the present claims.
Lee et al discloses that when OLED devices are used in an electronic apparatus such as a smart phone, a microphone for inputting sound signal may be further disposed in the OLED devices ([0006]). In a conventional OLED device, additional space is typically provided in the OLED device to receive the microphone ([0006]).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the organic light emitting device disclosed by Lee et al in an electronic apparatus such as a smart phone in order to obtain an electronic apparatus comprising a microphone, as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of a known device element for their intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Response to Arguments
14 Applicant's arguments filed 7/11/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) rejections of claims 12-18 as set forth in Paragraph 7 of the previous Office Action are withdrawn. However, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-9, now claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, and 20, set forth in Paragraph 6 of the previous Office Action is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights