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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 2 February 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-2 have been amended.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 5-22 are pending.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (CN 109134550 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zhu”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 9 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 109134550 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zhu”) in view of Kondakova et al. (“High-efficiency, low-voltage phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode devices with mixed host” Journal of Applied Physics (2008) vol. 104, pp. 094501-1 through 094501-17.) (hereafter “Kondakova”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 109134550 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zhu”) in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”) set forth in the last office action; the rejections of claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”) in view of Kawarada (US 2013/0300895 A1) (hereafter “Kawarada”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”), and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0254111 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”), and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0284642 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki ‘642”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”), and further in view of Blusseau (US 2004/0156211 A1) (hereafter “Blusseau) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”), and further in view of Toyoda (US 2006/0113898 A1) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, as outlined below, new grounds of rejection have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (CN 109134550 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zhu”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claims 9 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 109134550 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zhu”) in view of Kondakova et al. (“High-efficiency, low-voltage phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode devices with mixed host” Journal of Applied Physics (2008) vol. 104, pp. 094501-1 through 094501-17.) (hereafter “Kondakova”) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claims 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 109134550 A—machine translation relied upon) (hereafter “Zhu”) in view of Ma (US 2010/0237334 A1) (hereafter “Ma”) set forth in the last Office action 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”) set forth in the last office action; the rejections of claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”) in view of Kawarada (US 2013/0300895 A1) (hereafter “Kawarada”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”), and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0254111 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”), and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0284642 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki ‘642”) set forth in the last Office action; the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”), and further in view of Blusseau (US 2004/0156211 A1) (hereafter “Blusseau) set forth in the last Office action; and the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager et al. (US 2021/0217970 A1) (hereafter “Yeager”), and further in view of Toyoda (US 2006/0113898 A1) set forth in the last Office action 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2019/0280219 A1) (hereafter “Tsai”).
Regarding claims 1-3: Tsai discloses ligands LA of Tsai, including the ligand shown below {(paragraphs [0015] and [0079]: The compounds of the disclosure comprise a ligand LA having the structure of Formula I of Tsai.), (paragraph [0097]: The ligands LA of Tsai can have the structure of ligands LA1 to LA122, which includes the ligand LA121 shown below.)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
256
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsai does not exemplify a specific iridium complex compound comprising the ligand shown above.
However, Tsai teaches that the compounds of the disclosure of Tsai can be iridium complex compounds having the structure of Ir(LA)3 where LA is the ligand LA of Tsai {paragraph [0099]}.
Tsai teaches that devices using the compounds of Tsai have good efficiency and good stability {paragraph [0157]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ligand of Tsai shown above by using it in an iridium complex compound having the structure of Ir(LA)3 where LA is the ligand of Tsai shown above, based on the teaching of Tsai. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of substituent and substituent positions to be used to make compounds for use in an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light emitting devices.
Regarding claims 4-5: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach a specific organic light-emitting element comprising the compound of Tsai shown above.
However, Tsai teaches that the compounds are useful as phosphorescent light emitting dopants in the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting element {paragraphs [0152]-[0153]}.
Additionally, Tsai teaches organic light emitting elements having the structure of a first electrode, a second electrode, and an organic compound layer located between the first electrode and the second electrode and having at least a light-emitting layer {Fig. 1 as well as paragraphs [0033], [0040], [0043], and [0152]-[0153]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compound of Tsai by using it as the light emitting dopant in the light emitting layer of the device of Tsai described above, based on the teaching of Tsai. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claims 6 and 11-12: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Tsai taught above as the light emitting layer and additionally, comprising a host material.
However, Tsai teaches that the light emitting layer can additionally comprise a host material {paragraph [0171]}.
Tsai teaches that the host can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0177]}.
PNG
media_image2.png
304
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Tsai by using the host material of Tsai shown above, based on the teaching of Tsai. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claim 7: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach a specific device comprising the compound taught by Tsai having a specific concentration by mass in the light emitting layer.
However, Tsai exemplifies a device comprising a compound of the disclosure of Tsai having a concentration by mass of 12% {paragraph [0290]}.
Regarding claims 6, 8-9, and 12: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Tsai taught above as the light emitting layer and additionally, comprising a host material.
However, Tsai teaches that the light emitting layer can additionally comprise a host material {paragraph [0171]}.
Tsai teaches that the host can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0177]}.
PNG
media_image3.png
394
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Tsai by using the host material of Tsai shown above, based on the teaching of Tsai. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 12: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 5, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Tsai taught above as the light emitting layer and additionally, comprising a host material.
However, Tsai teaches that the light emitting layer can additionally comprise a host material {paragraph [0171]}.
Tsai teaches that the host can have the structure shown below {paragraph [0177]}.
PNG
media_image4.png
488
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the device taught by Tsai by using the host material of Tsai shown above, based on the teaching of Tsai. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum combinations of materials to be used to make an organic light-emitting device in order to produce optimal organic light-emitting devices.
Claim(s) 6, 9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2019/0280219 A1) (hereafter “Tsai”) in view of Kondakova et al. (“High-efficiency, low-voltage phosphorescent organic light-emitting diode devices with mixed host” Journal of Applied Physics (2008) vol. 104, pp. 094501-1 through 094501-17.) (hereafter “Kondakova”).
Regarding claims 6, 9, and 13-14: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach a specific device comprising the compound of Tsai taught above as the light emitting layer and additionally, comprising a host material. Additionally, Tsai does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a host material comprising benzophenone moiety or that the host material comprises both a first compound and a second compound.
However, Tsai teaches that the light emitting layer can additionally comprise a host material {paragraph [0171]}.
Kondakova teaches a mixture of compounds for use as a host material for a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant {Table II: Devices B and D; Table IV: Devices F, H, and P}.
The host material comprises the compounds shown below {Table IV, Devices L through O and Q and R}.
PNG
media_image5.png
428
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
380
378
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kondakova teaches that the mixed compound host provided devices with improved operating lifetimes {p. 094501-16, 2nd col., final paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Tsai described above by using the mixed host material of Kondakova described above, based on the teaching of Kondakova. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the operating lifetime of the device, as taught by Kondakova.
In the resultant device TPBI—which comprises an azine ring—can be equated with either the first compound or the second compound. When equated with the instant first compound, the limitations of the current claims 9 and 13 are met. When equated with the instant second compound, the limitations of the current claims 13 and 14 are met.
Regarding claims 13 and 15: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 6, as outlined above.
Tsau does not teach that the light emitting layer comprises a host material comprising benzophenone moiety or that the host material comprises both a first compound and a second compound.
Kondakova teaches a mixture of compounds for use as a host material for a phosphorescent light-emitting dopant {Table IV, Devices L through O and Q and R}.
The host material comprises the compounds shown below {Table IV, Devices L through O and Q and R}.
PNG
media_image7.png
334
330
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
380
378
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kondakova teaches that the mixed compound host provided devices with improved operating lifetimes {p. 094501-16, 2nd col., final paragraph}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Tsai described above by using the mixed host material of Kondakova described above, based on the teaching of Kondakova. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the operating lifetime of the device, as taught by Kondakova.
Claims 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2019/0280219 A1) (hereafter “Tsai”) in view of Liao et al. (US 2003/0170491 A1) (hereafter “Liao”).
Regarding claims 16-17: Tsai discloses all of the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach that the organic electroluminescent device comprises a second light-emitting layer different from the first light-emitting layer disposed between the first light-emitting layer and the first electrode or between the first light-emitting layer and the second electrode.
Liao teaches a white light emitting organic light emitting device that comprises three organic layers, each comprising a stack of layers, between the first organic layer and the second electrode {Fig. 7 as described in paragraphs [0071]-[0072]}.
The light is emitted from the device in the direction form the first electrode to the second electrode {Fig. 7 as well as the description of Fig. 7 in paragraphs [0071]-[0072] indicates that the light is emitted through the anode and the substrate—which is being equated with the instant second electrode}.
Each organic layer is an individual stack of organic layers {(paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims.), (paragraph [0049] describes the generalized structure of a stacked structure of the disclosure of which Fig. 7 is a specific embodiment. Elements 220.1 to 220.N are the organic EL units and N is the number of organic EL units.), (paragraph [0054]: Each organic EL unit in the stacked OLED device can be the same and can comprise a multilayer structure.)}.
Each organic layer emits a different color light, one emitting blue light—the layer nearest the anode, one emitting green light—the middle layer, and one emitting red light—the layer nearest the cathode {paragraph [0072]: Organic EL unit 220.1, organic EL unit 220.2, and organic EL unit 220.3 are being equated with the organic layers of the instant claims and emit blue light, green light, and red light, respectively.}.
The white light emitting organic light emitting device is comprised in a display apparatus comprising a plurality of pixels wherein the pixels include the light emitting elements of Liao and an active element coupled to the light emitting elements of Liao {(paragraph [0073]: The white light emitting organic light emitting device is comprised in a plurality of pixels in a full color display.), (paragraphs [0074]-[0075]: Figs. 8 and 9 describe an example display device comprising the white light emitting organic light emitting devices where the white light emitting organic light emitting devices are arranged in a panel and are connected to thin film transistors that control emissions.)}. Because the X-direction driving circuit and the Y-direction driving circuit control emissions of the display panel, they can each be equated with an active element.
Liao sought to provide an organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration {p. 5, ¶ [0070]}. A stacked organic light emitting device using Liao’s configuration further has high luminance efficiency, increased lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, and provides a stacked OLED with decreased optical absorption {p. 1, paragraphs [0009]-[0013]}. The stacked structure allows for white light generation at improved efficiency and operational lifetime {paragraph [0072]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic light emitting element of Tsai by incorporating it into the stacked display unit of Liao by stacking two duplicate organic layer stacks (the organic EL elements of Liao) over the organic layer stack of Tsai described above using the configuration of Liao where one organic layer emits blue light, one organic layer emits green light, and one organic layer emits red light, as taught by Liao. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device comprising a white light emitting organic light emitting device with improved brightness through implementation of a stacked configuration, as well as to provide a whit light emitting organic light emitting device with high efficiency, and increased operational lifetime, easy color adjustment, decreased driving voltage, decreased optical absorption as a result of the stacked configuration, as taught by Liao.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2019/0280219 A1) (hereafter “Tsai”) in view of Kawarada (US 2013/0300895 A1) (hereafter “Kawarada”).
Regarding claim 18: Tsai discloses all of the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach a digital camera comprising the organic light emitting element of Tsai.
However, Tsai does teach that the organic electroluminescent elements of Tsai can be used to make display elements for a digital camera {paragraph [0047]}.
Kawarada teaches a digital camera that is a photoelectric conversion apparatus {Fig. 1, element 112 is an image sensor} comprising an optical unit with a plurality of lenses {paragraph [0021]}, an imaging element configured to receive light passing through the optical unit {Fig. 1, element 112 is an image sensor} and a display unit comprising organic electroluminescent elements {paragraph [0031]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent light emitting element taught by Tsai by incorporating it into the display portion of the photoelectric conversion apparatus of Kawarada described above. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce photoelectric conversion apparatus.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2019/0280219 A1) (hereafter “Tsai”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0254111 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claim 19: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Katakura is incorporated into a display device that is an electronic device comprising at least one of a color filter and a transistor and at least one of a housing and a touch sensor.
However, Tsai does teach that the organic electroluminescent elements of Tsai can be used to make display elements for a telephone, a tablet, or a PDA {paragraph [0047]}.
Yamazaki teaches an electronic equipment comprising a housing, a communication unit configured to communicate with the outside, and a display unit that can use an organic electroluminescent light emitting element as the light emitting elements {paragraphs [0036]-[0054] describing Fig. 1A and Fig. 1B, which is the top view of a display device 100.}. The device comprises a housing {paragraph [0054]}, a communication unit {paragraph [0044]}, and a display unit {paragraphs [0038]-[0041]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent light emitting element taught by Tsai by incorporating it into the display device of Yamazaki described above wherein the display device comprises transistors and a touch sensor as described above. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal display devices.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2019/0280219 A1) (hereafter “Tsai”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0284642 A1) (hereinafter “Yamazaki ‘642”).
Regarding claim 20: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach that the light-emitting element taught by Tsai is incorporated into a lighting apparatus comprising a light source and an optical filter.
However, Tsai does teach that the organic electroluminescent elements of Tsai can be used to make lights for interior or exterior illumination {paragraph [0047]}.
Yamazaki ‘642 teaches a light emitting apparatus that can use an organic electroluminescent light emitting element as the light emitting elements {(paragraphs [0053]-[0057] describing Figs. 1A and 1B, which is the top view and a cross-sectional view, respectively, of a display device 100, comprising a light emitting element.), (paragraph [0095]: The light emitting element can be an organic electroluminescent element.)}.
The light emitting module can incorporate an optical filter {paragraphs [0186]-[0187]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent light emitting element taught by Tsai by incorporating it into the light-emitting module of Yamazaki ‘642 described above, wherein the light emitting module is comprised in a light emitting device comprising a module, as described above. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal display devices.
Claim 21 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2019/0280219 A1) (hereafter “Tsai”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Blusseau (US 2004/0156211 A1) (hereafter “Blusseau).
Regarding claim 21: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach a moving body comprising a body and a lamp provided on the body, wherein the lamp includes the organic light-emitting element of Tsai.
However, Tsai does teach that the organic electroluminescent elements of Tsai can be used to make light-emitting elements for vehicles {paragraph [0047]}.
Blusseau teaches an automobile headlight comprising electroluminescent devices, where the headlight is in the body of the car {Fig. 1, paragraphs [0001], [0021], [0031]}.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent light emitting element taught by Tsai by incorporating it into automobile headlights of Blusseau described above, wherein the electroluminescent devices of Tsai are used as a light source for the headlight, as described above. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable and optimum device structures in order to produce optimal headlights.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2019/0280219 A1) (hereafter “Tsai”) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Toyoda (US 2006/0113898 A1).
Regarding claim 22: Tsai teaches all of the features with respect to claim 4, as outlined above.
Tsai does not teach an electrographic image-forming apparatus comprising an exposing light source, comprising the organic light-emitting devices according to claim 3.
Toyoda teaches an electrographic image-forming apparatus {Fig. 1 as described on p. 4, ¶ [0061]; An electrophotographic printer is an electrographic image-forming device} comprising a photosensitive drum {Fig. 1 as described on p. 4, ¶ [0062]; Items 16 are photosensitive drums}, and a light source for exposing light to the photosensitive drum to obtain electrostatic latent image, wherein the light source has a plurality of the organic light-emitting devices {(Fig. 1 as described on p. 4, ¶ [0063]; Items 20 are organic electroluminescent exposure heads), (Fig. 2 as described on p. 4, ¶ [0065]; The exposure heads emit light providing the light to the photosensitive layer on the photosensitive drum, exposing the electrostatic latent image.), (Fig. 2 as described on p. 5, ¶ [0077]; the exposure head comprises a plurality of regions for forming pixels, which use organic light emitting devices to emit light.)}. Toyoda teaches that organic light emitting devices are used in exposure heads to make them thin and light {p. 1, paragraph [0004]}.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have included the organic light emitting devices as taught by Tsai in the image forming apparatus described by Toyoda, based on the teaching of Toyoda. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an exposure head that was thin and light as taught by Toyoda.
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 DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights