DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 21 has been added that includes the following limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
112
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This proviso is not simply carving out one single compound or a readily envisaged negative limitation but is instead a complex exclusion based on specific combinations of variables. While MPEP 2163.05(i) allows negative limitations to overcome prior art, an Applicant cannot simply add a negative limitation that is created through the picking and choosing from multiple variable selections to create a sub-genus that was not originally identified. The originally filed disclosure does not provide any direction that would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to the specific selection sof the variables in question which lead to the compounds excluded. The Applicant is essentially stitching together an exclusion from disparate parts of the specification. The specific list of conditions which leads to the proviso is not disclosed in any reasonable manner to suggest that Applicant had possession of such an exclusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1—3, 5-8, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 2014/0042469) (Seo) in view of Hwang et al (US 2009/0295274) (Hwang).
In reference to claims 1, 3, 12, and 16, Seo teaches a light emitting element comprising a plurality of light emitting layers wherein the first light emitting layer comprises a first host compound and a second host compound wherein the first and second host compounds are hole and electron transport compounds respectively ([0018] [0020]) to and the second light emitting layer comprises a second dopant, a hole transport compound and an electron transport compound wherein the two layers are in contact with each other ([0080]) and exemplifies a device such as example device 1 (Table 1) wherein the host materials in the different layers are different compounds as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
248
1006
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Seo does not state what the electron mobility and hole mobility of the host materials are, these properties are inherent to the materials themselves and are expected to meet the claim limitations as they meet all structural requirements of the claims. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.
Seo does not expressly teach that the hole transport host compounds should comprise deuterium atoms as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Hwang teaches, in analogous art, that partial or full deuteration of protons of semiconducting organic compounds, high voltage stability of the devices can be increased, turn on voltage can be decreased and therefor a usage lifetime can be prolonged efficiently (Hwang [0025]).
In light of the motivation of using partial deuteration 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 use the partial deuteration as described by Hwang in order to increase stability, decreased turn on voltage and prolong device lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on the claimed device configuration wherein 35DCzPPy reads on 312-1, PCCP reads on 311-2, 2mDBTPDBq-II reads on 312-3 and PCBA1BP reads on 311-5.
For Claim 3: Reads on wherein the layers are in direct contact.
For Claim 12: Reads on wherein the compounds are different.
For claim 16: Reads on formula 412.
In reference to claim 2, Seo in view of Hwang teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Hwang does not point to any specific ratio of hydrogen to deuterium, Hwang describes a range of partial to full deuteration that is a range that overlaps with the instantly claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
In reference to claims 5-8, Seo in view of Hwang teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Seo in view of Hwang does not teach the LUMO and HOMO values of the materials, these are inherent properties of the materials. As the materials meet all structural requirements of the claimed composition, it is assumed that these compounds inherently meet the claimed requirements. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 772. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, 195 USPQ 430.Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In reference to claims 13-15 and 17, Seo in view of Hwang teaches the device as described above for claim 1. While Seo does not teach the emission spectrum of the specific materials demonstrated these are inherent properties of those materials. If such properties are not inherent to those used in examples, the disclosure of Seo teaches a variety of materials that overlap in scope with those claimed including different emission wavelength ranges and structures (Seo [0141] to [0143]) and it would have been obvious to have selected taught functional equivalent dopants from the disclosure of Seo with the anticipation of producing a similarly effective device.
In reference to claims 18-20, Seo in view of Hwang teaches the device as described above for claim 1 and further teaches that it used in a device comprising a TFT connected to an electrode (Seo [0160]).
While Seo does not exemplify such a device, it would have been obvious to have used the device structure taught by Seo in order to have formed such a device as described therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
The instant claims are drawn to an organic light emitting device comprising at least a first and second emission layer each comprising two hosts and a dopant wherein the relative hole and electron mobility of each host is limited relative to the other and wherein the hole and electron hosts are selected from among a limited number of materials. A search of the prior art did not identify these devices.
The closest prior art identified Seo (US 2014/0042469). Seo teaches similar devices comprising mixed host materials and dopants in two light emitting layers with the claimed hole and electron mobility relationships. However, Seo fails to teach the specific materials required by the instant claims for the hole and electron transport hosts. Neither Seo nor the prior art as a whole provide sufficiently specific motivation to select these specific materials to arrive at the claimed devices.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 12-20 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer A. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights