DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed 07/20/26.
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
The rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 05/04/26 is herein amended due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A) as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed 05/04/26 is NOT overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of
foreign document publication JP 2014-096572 A (herein referred to as “Ebisawa et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ebisawa et al. discloses the following compound for use as light-emitting dopant (in the light-emitting layer) of an organic electroluminescent (EL) device (Abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
254
166
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 21 of Ebisawa et al.) such that n = 0, R3-4 = unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl), R5-10 = hydrogen, R1 = hydrogen, and R2 = Applicant’s Chemical Formula A (with l1 = 1, L1 = unsubstituted heteroarylene group (pyridinylene), and m = 1) of Applicant’s Chemical Formulae 1 and 1-1; x = 0 of Applicant’s Chemical Formula A-3. Ebisawa et al. disclose an organic electroluminescent (EL) device comprising the following layers: substrate (2), anode (3), hole-injecting layer (4), hole-transporting layer (5), light-emitting layer (6), electron-transporting layer (7), electron-injecting layer (8), and cathode (9) (Fig. 1 of Ebisawa et al.). The light-emitting layer comprises a host and dopant materials ([0007]). Ebisawa et al. discloses that the electron-transporting layer (7) and the electron-injecting layer (8) can be collapsed into a single layer (i.e., an electron-injecting/transporting layer) which can “fulfill the function of both layers” ([0075]); the cathode comprises a bilayer comprising LiF and Al (in this order) ([0118]). Ebisawa et al. discloses that its inventive compounds comprise the light-emitting layer (Abstract; [0066]).
Notice that the upper portion of the light-emitting layer closer to the cathode is inherently electron-injecting/transporting to the portion of the light-emitting layer beneath it (as light is emitted via electron-hole recombination throughout the light-emitting layer (6)), and hence that upper portion in combination with the collapsed electron-transporting and electron-injecting layers (7 and 8) can be defined as an “electron injection and transfer layer” (which comprises the Applicant’s compound of Chemical Formula 1). This interpretation would read on the construction as recited in Claim 1.
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.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of
foreign document publication JP 2014-096572 A (herein referred to as “Ebisawa et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ebisawa et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic light emitting device) of Claim 1 as shown above. Ebisawa et al. discloses that its inventive compounds are encompassed by the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
48
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 12 of Ebisawa et al.) where L = arylene or heteroarylene (only) ([0027]), and A = any one of the following (among others) ([0012]):
PNG
media_image3.png
306
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 13) and Xn = any one of X1-18 (hydrogen, aryl, etc.) which is linked to L. Other embodiments are disclosed, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
230
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 21 of Ebisawa et al.). However, Ebisawa et al. does not explicitly disclose any of the compounds as recited in the claim. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify compound A-11-1 as disclosed by Ebisawa et al. (above) to produce the following compound:
PNG
media_image5.png
166
136
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The motivation is provided by the fact that the modification merely involves change in the bonding position of the CN-substituted phenylene on the core condensed polycyclic group, producing a positional isomer that can be expected to have highly similar chemical and physical properties; further motivation exists, including the fact that the production merely involves selection from a highly finite list of possibilities (in regards to the bonding position of the CN-substituted phenylene) as envisioned from the scope of Ebisawa et al.’s general formula, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0174538 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of
foreign document publication JP 2014-096572 A (herein referred to as “Ebisawa et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ebisawa et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic light emitting device) of Claim 1 as shown above. Ebisawa et al. discloses that the electron-injecting layer comprises materials such as an organometallic complex having an 8-quinolinol (or a derivative) as a ligand, among others ([0075]). However, Ebisawa et al. does not explicitly disclose the further presence of lithium quinolate (LiQ).
Park et al. discloses a composition comprising a 1:1 mixture of lithium quinolate (LiQ) and electron-transporting compound ET-A as viable material comprising the electron-injecting and electron-transporting layer (top of which lies a bilayer of Li/Al as cathode) ([0280]). It would have been obvious to incorporate such a composition into the electron-injecting and electron-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ebisawa et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Park et al. which is directed to a known and viable material for an electron-injecting and electron-transporting layer of an organic EL device, thus rendering the incorporation predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-096572 A) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0174538 A1) in view of Miyashita et al. (US 2017/0012215 A1).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of
foreign document publication JP 2014-096572 A (herein referred to as “Ebisawa et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Ebisawa et al. in view of Park et al. discloses the organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic light emitting device) of Claim 10 as shown above. Ebisawa et al. in view of Park et al. discloses an electron-injecting and electron-transporting layer comprising a 1:1 mixture of lithium quinolate (LiQ) and electron-transporting compound ET-A. However, Ebisawa et al. in view of Park et al. does not explicitly disclose the recited ratio with respect to a compound of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1.
Miyashita et al. discloses the following compound “capable of easily performing electron injection”:
PNG
media_image6.png
266
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 37) such that n = 1, R3-4 = unsubstituted aryl group (phenyl), R7 = Applicant’s Chemical Formula A (with l1 = 1, L1 = direct bond, and m = 1), and R1-2, R5-6, and R8-11 = hydrogen of Applicant’s Chemical Formula 1. It would have been obvious to substitute compound E19 as disclosed by Miyashita et al. for compound ET-A in the electron-injecting and electron-transporting layer of the organic EL device as disclosed by Ebisawa et al. in view of Park et al. The motivation is provided by the fact that the substitution merely involves an exchange of one electron-transporting compound (compound ET-A) for a functional equivalent (compound E19) known to be capable of easily performing electron injection, thus rendering the production predictable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 13 is 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.
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of
foreign document publication JP 2014-096572 A (herein referred to as “Ebisawa et al.”) as then English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
The closest prior art is provided by Ebisawa et al. (JP 2014-09657 A), which discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
48
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 12 of Ebisawa et al.) where L = arylene or heteroarylene (only) ([0027]), and A = any one of the following (among others) ([0012]):
PNG
media_image3.png
306
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 13) and Xn = any one of X1-18 (hydrogen, aryl, etc.) which is linked to L. Embodiments are disclosed, including:
PNG
media_image4.png
230
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 21). However, it is the position of the Office that neither Ebisawa et al. singly nor in further combination with any other prior art discloses any of the specific compounds as recited in the claim, particularly in regards to the nature of the substituent groups attached to the core condensed aromatic group.
Response to Arguments
13. The Applicant argues that Ebisawa et al.’s inventive compound A-1-1 serves as dopant material in the light-emitting layer, and that “the layer containing its dopant material is separated from the LiF layer of the cathode by a layer of compound B-7 and a layer of chemical compound 39” (page 23). Such a construction, the Applicant argues, would not read on the claims. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Notice that the sequence of organic layers in the organic electroluminescent (EL) device as disclosed by Ebisawa et al. is as follows: substrate (2), anode (3), hole-injecting layer (4), hole-transporting layer (5), light-emitting layer (6), electron-transporting layer (7), electron-injecting layer (8), and cathode (9) (Fig. 1). Ebisawa et al. discloses that the electron-transporting layer (7) and the electron-injecting layer (8) can be collapsed into a single layer (i.e., an electron-injecting/transporting layer) which can “fulfill the function of both layers” ([0075]); the cathode comprises a bilayer comprising LiF and Al (in this order) ([0118]). Although the inventive compounds of Ebisawa et al. is present in the light-emitting layer (6), notice that the upper portion of this light-emitting layer (of arbitrary thickness) closer to the cathode is inherently electron-injecting/transporting to the portion of the light-emitting layer beneath it (as light is emitted via electron-hole recombination throughout the light-emitting layer (6)), and is in direct contact with the collapsed electron-transporting and electron-injecting layers (7 and 8), the latter of which is in contact with the Li/Al cathode. The entirety of this layer (i.e., the upper portion of light-emitting layer (6) and the collapsed layer comprising electron-transporting and electron injecting layers (7 and 8)) can be defined as the “electron injection and transfer layer” (which comprises the Applicant’s compound of Chemical Formula 1). This interpretation would read on the construction as recited in Claim 1.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights