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 .
Elected Species
PNG
media_image1.png
596
960
media_image1.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 are represented by:
Subspecies A =
PNG
media_image2.png
254
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 16)
Subspecies B: Formula iv =
PNG
media_image3.png
420
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 27)
..
Subspecies C: H57 (page 16)
PNG
media_image4.png
324
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
The examinable species reads on 1-2 and 11-16. Claims 3-10 are withdrawn from further consideration as not reading on the examinable species.
..
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.
Claims 1-2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabunouchi (US 2006/0159957 A1) in view of Klubek (US 2006/0141287 A1).
Regrading Claim, Yabunouchi teach an OLED containing anode/a light emitting layer/a cathode (paragraph 79). The light emitting layer contains an arylamine (paragraph 72), H57above; a host material to be used together with the arylamine wherein the host is an anthracene derivative, Formula iv above (paragraph 96); a light emitting material which includes a fluorescent dye (dopant) (paragraph 95).
Yabunouchi fails to mention a specific fluorescent dye. Klubek teaches a fluorescent dye represented by Fluorescent dopant DCJ (page 16), above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected from known fluorescent dopants which would have included DCJ which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 1).
Regrading Claim 2, Yabunouchi in view of Klubek teaches the organic light-emitting device of claim 1 and no exciplex formation is taught for the anthracene and arylamine (per claim 2).
Regrading Claim 12, Yabunouchi in view of Klubek teaches the organic light-emitting device of claim 1 which emits blue light (paragraph 51) (per claim 12).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabunouchi (US 2006/0159957 A1) in view of Klubek (US 2006/0141287 A1) as evidenced by Zhao (Scientific Reports, 2015)
Regarding Claim 11, Yabunouchi in view of Klubek teaches the organic light-emitting device of claim 1 containing fluorescent dopant DCJ. Zhao teaches a triplet energy of 5.4eV and a singlet energy of 3.2eV for DCJ with a difference of 2.2eV (per claim 11).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabunouchi (US 2006/0159957 A1) in view of Klubek (US 2006/0141287 A1) and Park (US 2017/0012188 A1).
Regarding Claims 13-16, Yabunouchi in view of Klubek teaches the organic light-emitting device of claim 1 but fails to mention an apparatus, electronic appliance, and light device.
Park teach light-emitting apparatus may include at least one light-emitting device (paragraph 112). The light-emitting device mounted on a side adjacent to a light emission surface of the light guide plate to create an optical sheet wherein a display panel emits the light across an array substrate including thin film transistor (paragraph 161). The light-emitting device is included in a light source module (light device) (paragraph 166). The light source module may be arranged to emit light toward the opened side of the housing (paragraph 167). A reflection plate uniformly disperses light from the light source (paragraph 179). A communication module (communication unit) may be mounted on the reflection plate to control the lighting apparatus for electronic appliances such as vehicle systems, TVs, refrigerators, and air conditioners (paragraph 180).
As both Yabunouchi in view of Klubek and Park teach light emitting device and Park teaches a light emitting device used in a light-emitting apparatus such as a lighting device via a display panel containing thin film transistors producing light connected to a housing directed to a commination unit controlling electronic appliances, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have used the organic light-emitting device of Yabunouchi in view of Klubek in known application areas as taught by Park which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 13-16).
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