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 .
The office acknowledges the receipt of applicants’ response to the restriction requirement dated 10/02/2025.
Elected Species
PNG
media_image1.png
412
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
228
172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As no claims where specifically drawn to applicants’ elected species in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. Claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of the elected species would be allowable. Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species.
Examinable Species
The examinable species is represented by B16 (page 14):
PNG
media_image3.png
282
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examinable species reads on claims 1 and 9-18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamatani (US 20110251394 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kamatani teaches B16 (page 17) which reads on applicants’ G11:
PNG
media_image3.png
282
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
B16 reads on applicants’ G11 wherein two A(s) = phenyl substituted with two F(s); two A(s) = H; all remaining substituents = H (per claim 1).
Regarding Claims 9-11, Kamatani teaches a multilayer organic light-emitting device is a structure in which an anode, a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer, and a cathode are sequentially layered on a substrate (paragraph 71). The emission layer contains Formula 1 (paragraph 74), B16 (per claims 9-10)
The organic light-emitting device can emit blue light (paragraph 137) (per claim 11).
Regarding Claim 14, Kamatani teaches FIG. 3 is a circuit diagram showing a circuit configuring one pixel in the display apparatus 1 shown in FIG. 1. In FIG. 3, a second thin film transistor (TFT) 23 controls the electrical current for causing an organic light-emitting device 24 to emit light. In a pixel circuit 2 in FIG. 3, when a selection signal is applied to a gate selection line Gi, the first TFT 21 is turned ON, an image signal Ii is supplied to a capacitor 22, and a gate voltage of the second TFT 23 is thereby determined. An electrical current is supplied to the organic light-emitting device 24 from an electrical current supply line Ci according to the gate voltage of the second TFT 23 (paragraph 103) (per claim 14).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani (US 20110251394 A1) in view of Soda ( US20210134231 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kamatani teaches the OLED of claim 9, but fails to mention a photoconversion apparatus.
Soda teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus which includes an optical unit including a plurality of lenses and an image pickup element for receiving light that has passed through the optical unit. The photoelectric conversion apparatus may include the display unit which displays information (paragraph 138). The display apparatus includes the organic light emitting element (paragraph 140).
As Soda teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus containing an OLED and Kamatani teaches an OLED, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used the OLED of Kamatani in known application areas which would have included in a photoelectric conversion apparatus as taught by Soda which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 15).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani (US 20110251394 A1) in view of Aota (US 20200194720 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kamatani teaches the OLED of claim 9 but fails to mention usage in electronic equipment.
Aota teaches an electronic apparatus including a display unit including the organic light-emitting device along with a housing provided with a display unit, and a communication unit being disposed in the housing and communicating with the outside (paragraph 15).
As Aota teaches an electronic apparatus (equipment) containing an OLED and Kamatani teaches an OLED, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used the OLED of Kamatani in known application areas which would have included in an electronic apparatus as taught by Aota which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 16).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani (US 20110251394 A1) in view of Nishide (US 20200095180 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Kamatani teaches the OLED of claim 9 but fails to mention usage in lighting apparatus.
Nishide teaches a lighting apparatus 1400 may include a housing 1401, a light source 1402, a circuit board 1403, an optical film 1404, and a light diffusion unit 1405. The light source may include the organic light-emitting element .The optical film may be a film that improves the color rendering of the light source. The light diffusion unit used for lighting up or the like effectively diffuses light from the light source and allows the light to reach a wide area. The optical filter and the light diffusion unit may be disposed on the light-emitting side of the lighting apparatus (paragraph 152).
As Nishide teaches an lighting apparatus containing an OLED and Kamatani teaches an OLED, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have used the OLED of Kamatani in known application areas as taught by Nishide which would have included in an lighting apparatus which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 17).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamatani (US 20110251394 A1) in view of Mochizuki (US 20210305532 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kamatani teaches the OLED of claim 9 but fails to mention usage in moving body.
Mochizuki teaches a moving body (automobile) including a lighting unit. A light emitting device 100 can be applied to the lighting unit (paragraph 111).
As Mochizuki teaches a moving body containing an OLED and Kamatani teaches an OLED, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used the OLED of Kamatani in known application areas which would have included as taught by Mochizuki a moving body which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to show:
another light-emitting layer on the light-emitting layer, wherein the other light-emitting layer emits light of a different emission color from the light-emitting layer (per claim 12)
wherein the organic light-emitting element emits white light (per claim 13)
Claim 12 requires a separate light emitting layer on top of the light emitting layer of claim 10 (two separate light emitting layers). The specification supports this interpretation in paragraph 62 which states the term "multiple layers", as
used herein, refers to a laminate of a light-emitting layer
and another light-emitting layer. The prior fails to show a device with multiple light emitting layers containing applicants’ G11 in one light emitting layer adjacent to another light emitting layer emitting a difference color. Adding an additional light emitting layer was not deemed obvious as the prior art did not suggest such a modification of device layers. Selecting materials which emit light at various colors fails to remedy the structural difference based on the missing additional light emitting layer was not found in the prior art. There appeared to be no justification to make such a change with hindsight reasoning.
Response to Amendment
New art applied.
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 GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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 Chriss 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.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights