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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 08/04/2025, the claims were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the objections to claims 16 and 22 are withdrawn by the Office.
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 12-18 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claims 12-18 as being of improper dependent form are withdrawn by the Office.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 13-15, 17-18, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 11, 12, 16, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-10, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-26 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the remaining rejections of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art because the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
A reinterpretation of the prior art is given below to explain how the prior art still reads on the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 21-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eom et al. (WO 2021/118086 A2, using the previously provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Eom discloses Compound 21 (paragraph 109), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claim when Y1 and Y3 are nitrogen atoms, Y2 is CRx wherein Rx is a phenyl group, Y4 is CR wherein R is a phenyl group, and Y5 is a methine (CH) group, q is 0 and Arb is absent, L1 and L2 are an aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (phenylene), p is 0 and Ara is absent, R8 is a single bond linking *a to L1. All remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
With respect to claim 3, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eom also teaches compound 13, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant parent claim when Y1 and Y3 are nitrogen atoms, Y2 is CRx wherein Rx is a phenyl group, Y4 is CR wherein R is a biphenyl group, and Y5 is a methine (CH) group, n is 0 and L2 and Arb are absent, L1 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (phenylene), p is 0 and Ara is absent, R8 is a single bond linking *a to L1. All remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
This compound also meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-1) for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 5, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eom also teaches Compound 3 (paragraph 109), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
388
284
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant parent claim when Y1 and Y3 are nitrogen atoms, Y2 is CRx wherein Rx is a phenyl group, Y4 is CR wherein R is a biphenyl group, and Y5 is a methine (CH) group, n is 0 and L2 and Arb are absent, m is 0 and L1 and Ara are absent, R8 is a single bond linking *a to **. All remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
This compound also meets the requirements of the instant formula (1-2) when m and n are 0 and R8 represents a direct bond from *a to **.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, and L1 and L2 are an unsubstituted divalent residue of benzene, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, and the compound is represented by instant formula (1-11), as pictured above
With respect to claim 10, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eom also teaches compound 13, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 13 is represented by instant Formula (1-14), as pictured and discussed above.
With respect to claims 21-23, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eom also teaches compound 13, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant claim when Y1 and Y3 are nitrogen atoms, Y2 is CRx wherein Rx is a phenyl group, Y4 is CR wherein R is a biphenyl group, and Y5 is a methine (CH) group, n is 0 and L2 and Arb are absent, L1 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (phenylene), p is 0 and Ara is absent, R8 is a single bond linking *a to L1. All remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
Eom teaches use of this compound as a material for a blue electroluminescent device (paragraph 294). Each organic electroluminescent device comprises a cathode of Al (paragraph 296), an anode of ITO (paragraph 295), and several organic layer between these two electrodes including a light emitting layer (ADN + 5% DS-405), and the electron transporting (auxiliary) layer is composed of compound 16 (Table 1, Example 3).
With respect to claim 25, Eom teaches the device of claim 23, and Eom also teaches the electron transporting region comprises Alq3 as an electron transporting material and the compound is comprised in the first electron transporting (auxiliary) layer only (paragraph 324 and Table 1, Example 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 2, 4, 6, 13-15, 17-18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (WO 2021/118086 A2, using the previously provided translation for references) as applied above.
With respect to claim 2, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, compound 21 of Eom does not conform to instant Formula (1-a) because it differs in the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Examiner notes that Compound 21, pictured and discussed above is derived from Eom Chemical Formula 1, which is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Given the general formula and teachings of Eom, 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 the positional isomer of compound 21 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Eom and possess the properties taught by Eom. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-a).
Eom includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eom 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an electron transport compound which exhibits significantly better performance in terms of driving voltage, emission peak, and current efficiency when used in a blue organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 316), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 4, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eom also teaches compound 13, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant parent claim when Y1 and Y3 are nitrogen atoms, Y2 is CRx wherein Rx is a phenyl group, Y4 is CR wherein R is a biphenyl group, and Y5 is a methine (CH) group, n is 0 and L2 and Arb are absent, L1 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (phenylene), p is 0 and Ara is absent, R8 is a single bond linking *a to L1. All remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
However, compound 13 of Eom does not conform to instant Formula (1-1-a) because it differs in the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Examiner notes that Compound 13, pictured and discussed above is derived from Eom Chemical Formula 1, which is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Given the general formula and teachings of Eom, 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 the positional isomer of compound 13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Eom and possess the properties taught by Eom. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-1-a).
Eom includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eom 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an electron transport compound which exhibits significantly better performance in terms of driving voltage, emission peak, and current efficiency when used in a blue organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 316), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 6, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
Eom also teaches Compound 3 (paragraph 109), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
388
284
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant parent claim when Y1 and Y3 are nitrogen atoms, Y2 is CRx wherein Rx is a phenyl group, Y4 is CR wherein R is a biphenyl group, and Y5 is a methine (CH) group, n is 0 and L2 and Arb are absent, m is 0 and L1 and Ara are absent, R8 is a single bond linking *a to **. All remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
However, compound 3 of Eom does not conform to instant Formula (1-2-a) because it differs in the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Examiner notes that Compound 3, pictured and discussed above is derived from Eom Chemical Formula 1, which is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Given the general formula and teachings of Eom, 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 the positional isomer of compound 3 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Eom and possess the properties taught by Eom. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-2-a).
Eom includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eom 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an electron transport compound which exhibits significantly better performance in terms of driving voltage, emission peak, and current efficiency when used in a blue organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 316), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 13, Eom teaches the compound of claim 9, as discussed above.
However, Compound 21 differs from instant formula (1-22-a) in the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Examiner notes that Compound 21, pictured and discussed above is derived from Eom Chemical Formula 1, which is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Given the general formula and teachings of Eom, 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 the positional isomer of compound 21 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Eom and possess the properties taught by Eom. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a positional isomer meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-22-a).
Eom includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eom 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an electron transport compound which exhibits significantly better performance in terms of driving voltage, emission peak, and current efficiency when used in a blue organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 316), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 14, Eom teaches the compound of claim 9, as discussed above.
Eom also teaches compound 13, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This compound meets the requirements of the instant parent claim when Y1 and Y3 are nitrogen atoms, Y2 is CRx wherein Rx is a phenyl group, Y4 is CR wherein R is a biphenyl group, and Y5 is a methine (CH) group, n is 0 and L2 and Arb are absent, L1 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring having 6 carbon atoms (phenylene), p is 0 and Ara is absent, R8 is a single bond linking *a to L1. All remaining R groups are hydrogen atoms.
However, compound 13 of Eom does not conform to instant Formula (1-23-a) because it differs in the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Examiner notes that Compound 13, pictured and discussed above is derived from Eom Chemical Formula 1, which is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Given the general formula and teachings of Eom, 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 the positional isomer of compound 13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Eom and possess the properties taught by Eom. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-23-a) when m2 is 1, n2 is 0 and *d1 bonds to *e.
Eom includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eom 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an electron transport compound which exhibits significantly better performance in terms of driving voltage, emission peak, and current efficiency when used in a blue organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 316), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 15, Eom teaches the compound of claim 9, as discussed above.
Eom also teaches compound 13, which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, compound 13 of Eom does not conform to instant Formula (1-24-a).
Examiner notes that Compound 13, pictured and discussed above is derived from Eom Chemical Formula 1, which is not limiting the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Given the general formula and teachings of Eom, 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 the positional isomer of compound 13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Eom and possess the properties taught by Eom. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-24-a) when m3 is 0, n3 is 1 and *b2 bonds to *c2.
Eom includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eom 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an electron transport compound which exhibits significantly better performance in terms of driving voltage, emission peak, and current efficiency when used in a blue organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 316), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 17, Eom teaches the compound of claim 10, as discussed above.
However, compound 13 of Eom does not conform to instant Formula (1-25-a) because it differs in the bonding pattern on the xanthene derivative.
Examiner notes that Compound 13, pictured and discussed above is derived from Eom Chemical Formula 1, which is not limiting the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Given the general formula and teachings of Eom, 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 the positional isomer of compound 13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Eom and possess the properties taught by Eom. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of instant Formula (1-23-a) when m4 is 1.
Eom includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eom 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an electron transport compound which exhibits significantly better performance in terms of driving voltage, emission peak, and current efficiency when used in a blue organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 316), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 18, Eom teaches the compound of claim 10, as discussed above.
Compound 13, which is pictured and discussed above, is also derived from Eom chemical formula 3 (paragraphs 85 and 108), which is pictured below (paragraph 86).
PNG
media_image4.png
146
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Eom also teaches that L is represented by a naphthalene group (paragraphs 68 and 69), such as the one pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
62
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further, Examiner notes that in Chemical Formula 3, Eom is not limiting with respect to the bonding position of the xanthene derivative.
Given the general formula and teachings of Eom, 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 the positional isomer of compound 13 in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and would expect the isomeric compounds to be useful as materials in the organic layer of the electroluminescent device of Eom and possess the properties taught by Eom. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarity and similar utilities. See MPEP 2144.09 I. When compounds which are position isomers or homologs are of sufficiently close structural similarity, there is an expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Such a modification produces a compound that meets the requirements of the instant claim when the compound is represented by instant formula (1-26-a).
Eom includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Eom 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 substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an electron transport compound which exhibits significantly better performance in terms of driving voltage, emission peak, and current efficiency when used in a blue organic electroluminescent device (paragraph 316), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
With respect to claim 26, Eom teaches the organic electroluminescent device of claim 22.
Eom also teaches that the organic electroluminescent device including the inventive compound can be used in a full-color display panel (paragraph 36).
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 device in an apparatus, such as a full-color display panel, as taught by Eom.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (WO 2021/118086 A2, using the previously provided translation for references) as applied above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2002/0076576 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Eom teaches the compound of claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Eom does not teach the presence of a deuterium atom.
Li teaches organic semiconductors consisting of a chromophore in which one or more hydrogen atoms is replace with a deuterium atom. Li teaches that deuterated organic semiconductors have improved performance, for instance, high fluorescence yield and more stability than its non-deuterated analogue (paragraph 0023).
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 incorporate a deuterium atoms into the compound of Eom in order to improve the compounds performance, and obtain higher fluorescence and more stability than its non-deuterated analogue, as taught by Li.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (WO 2021/118086 A2, using the previously provided translation for references) as applied to claims 1-17, 19, 21-23, and 25 above, and further in view of Oyamada et al. (US 2011/0169045 A1).
With respect to claim 24, Eom teaches the organic electroluminescent device of claim 23, as discussed above.
However, Eom does not teach nor fairly suggest that the electron transport zone should comprise an alkali metal-containing organic complex.
In analogous art, Oyamada teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising an n-type dopant containing electron transport layer. Oyamada teaches that alkali metals such as cesium have a low work function and exhibit a high doping efficiency, and it has been confirmed that a similar effect may be obtained by using the salt of alkaline metal and an organic compound for a dopant (paragraph 0005, lines 16-22). Oyamada teaches the n-type dopant containing electron transport layer includes an organic compound capable of transporting electrons as a first component which is mixed with an n-type dopant of an electron donor of metallic atom as a second component. Oyamada teaches that organic electroluminescent devices comprising an n-type-dopant-containing electron transport layer may demonstrate prolonged stability and high temperature preservation without luminance deterioration (paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the n-type-dopant containing electron transport layer of Eom, which comprises an organic compound capable of transporting electrons as a first component which is mixed with an n-type dopant of an electron donor of metallic atom, such as caesium, as a second component as an electron transport layer in an electroluminescent device in order to form an electroluminescent device with prolonged stability and high temperature preservation without luminance deterioration as taught by Oyamada.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1786