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 § 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 1-6. 8-10, 12-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuki et al (US 2008/0124572) (Mizuki) in view of Lee et al (KR 2013/0135178) (Lee).
In reference to claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18, Mizuki teaches an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, and organic layers between them including hole transport layers, electron transport layers, and an emission layer (Kim [0010] [0074]) comprising an aromatic amine derivative such as compound H23 as shown below as a material for the light emitting material that is included with a known host material and dopant (Mizuki [0087] [0088] [0109] [0110]) at a concentration of 50:50 with a dopant that can be known orthometalated Ir complexes (Mizuki [0112]).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mizuki does not exemplify a host that reads on the instantly claimed material but does teach that the additional suitable hosts are not particularly limited and are used in combination (Mizuki [0087] [0088] [0109] [0110]).
With respect to the difference, Lee teaches compounds for use in organic EL devices that comprise a compound 1-1 as shown below in an emission layer (Kim [0067] [0098]). Lee further teaches that using this compound in a device as taught gives excellent characteristics in efficiency, driving voltage, lifespan, and the like (Lee [0024]).
PNG
media_image2.png
368
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using compound 1-1 in the emission layer 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 compound 1-1 in the emission layer as described by Lee in order to excellent characteristics in efficiency, driving voltage, lifespan, and the like and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on the claimed device structure wherein the compound of H53 reads on a compound of formula 1-2, R1 is biphenyl, R2 and R3 are each biphenyl, R4 is phenyl and L5 is phenyl wherein R4 and L5 are fused to form a ring compound 18C reads on formula 2-3, wherein R11 is substituted triazine.
For Claim 3-4: Reads on CY3 and benzene.
For Claim 5: Reads on H-4.
For Claim 6: Reads on triazine as an electron transport group.
For Claim 8: Reads on phenyl, substituted phenyl, and substituted triazine.
For Claim 9: Reads on triazine.
For Claim 10: Reads on triazine.
For Claim 12: Reads on a dopant.
For Claim 13: Reads on a phosphorescent dopant.
For Claim 15-16: Reads on the claimed layers.
For Claim 18: Reads on an apparatus.
In reference to claim 2, Mizuki in view of Lee teaches the device as described above for claim 1 comprising a mixture of host materials.
Mizuki does not specifically state the mixing ratio of host materials. When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969) (See MPEP 2143).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuki et al (US 2008/0124572) (Mizuki) in view of Lee et al (KR 2013/0135178) (Lee) and further in view of Kim et al (US 2009/0078317) (Kim2).
In reference to claim 14, Mizuki in view of Lee teaches the device as described for claim.
Mizuki in view of Lee does not expressly teach that the emission color is as claimed or point to a specific orthometalated Iridium dopant material that meets this requirement.
With respect to the difference, Kim2 teaches, in analogous art, orthometalated iridium complexes for use in organic EL devices including e.g. the compound as shown below (Kim2 [0056]).
PNG
media_image3.png
178
224
media_image3.png
Greyscale
That is, the substitution of the dopant above of Kim2 for the dopant of Mizuki, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of emitting light. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
While Mizuki in view of Lee and Kim2 does not teach a specific wavelength and color coordinate value, the composition is the same as the claimed composition and therefore the properties appear to be inherent to the device. 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). 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuki et al (US 2008/0124572) (Mizuki) in view of Lee et al (KR 2013/0135178) (Lee) and further in view of Takeda et al (US 2008/0023724) (Takeda).
In reference to claim 17, Mizuki in view of Lee teaches the device as described above for claim 1.
Mizuki in view of Lee does not teach the use of a capping layer as instantly claimed.
With respect to the difference, Takeda teaches, in analogous art, organic light emitting elements comprising a capping layer outside of the electrodes and comprising materials such as the compound shown below (Takeda Fig 1, [0039]). Takeda further teaches that the use of such capping layers increases light extraction efficiency (Takeda [0061])
PNG
media_image4.png
192
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the capping layer 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 capping layer as described by Takeda in order to improve light extraction efficiency and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 17: Reads on the capping layer claimed and Takeda’s compound reads on formula 1-2 wherein a 1 to a4 are each 0, R1 to R4 are each phenyl and two are substituted with R10a that is a methyl, a5 is 2 and each L5 is phenylene.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuki et al (US 2008/0124572) (Mizuki) in view of Lee et al (KR 2013/0135178) (Lee) and further in view of Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claim 19-20, Mizuki in view of Lee teaches the device as described for claim 18 above and further teaches it is for use in a variety of electronic devices (Kim [0003]-[0004]).
Mizuki in view of Lee does not expressly teach that this device includes a TFT or a color filter etc. as instantly claimed. With respect to the difference, Song teaches, in analogous art, display devices comprising OLEDs with similar materials comprising thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes (Song [0132] to [0134]) and a color filter (Song [0143]).
It would have been obvious to use the device configuration of Song including well known elements such as thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes and a color filter with the expectation of providing an organic EL display device with improved color characteristics, efficiency and lifespan (Song abstract).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11 is drawn to a light-emitting device comprising a compound of formula 1-2 and specific compounds as listed therein. A search of the prior art did not identify these devices.
Mizuki teaches organic electronic devices comprising compounds that read on the instantly claimed formula 1-2 but does not teach that they expressly include the compounds instantly claimed. Kim teaches, in analogous art, that benefits can be achieved from including compounds of formula 2-3 of claim 1 but does not provide sufficiently specific motivation to arrive at any of those specific compounds instantly claimed in claim 11. Neither Mizuki, Kim nor the prior art as a whole provide motivation for the ordinarily skilled artisan that would render the modification of Mizuki to arrive at the instantly claimed devices obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application.
Claim 11 is allowed.
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