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 12/30/2025.
Elected Species
PNG
media_image1.png
700
682
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 again to find an examinable species.
Examinable Species
The examinable species is
.
PNG
media_image2.png
702
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A specific example of generic Formula 1 is represented by
PNG
media_image3.png
354
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 (DC1) can be deuterated at 10-100% which covers applicant entire range. DC1 reads on claims 1, 10-18. Claims 2-9 are withdrawn from further consideration as not reading on the examinable species.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, 10-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herron (US 2017/0025609 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 10-11, 13, Herron teaches a deuterated triarylamine represented by deuterated Formula 1 (page 3):
PNG
media_image2.png
702
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A specific example of generic Formula 1 is represented by
PNG
media_image3.png
354
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have made a number deuterated derivatives of DC1 which would have included a range of deuterium incorporation overlapping with applicants’ range, absent unexpected results (per claim 1).
Regarding Claims 10-11, 13, Herron teaches an OLED device 200 has anode 110, hole injection layer 120, hole transport layer 130, photoactive layer 140, electron transport layer 150, and cathode 160 (paragraph 249). Formula I (DC1) is useful as hole transport materials in layer 130 (paragraph 257s 10-11) (per clams 10-11, 13).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herron (US 2017/0025609 A1) in view of Hsu (US 2010/0276677).
Regarding Claim 14, Herron teaches the OLED of claim 10 but fails to mention the efficiency enhancing layer.
Hsu teaches a light enhance layer has higher refractive index, between 2 and 3, than that of the top substrates, thereby efficiently improving the luminance intensity of the OLED (abstract).
The office interprets the above as a generic teaching showing a suitable incentive to modify an OLED by adding a light enhance layer to efficiently improve the luminance intensity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have modified the OLED of Herron which would have included adding an efficiency enhancing layer since Hsu teaching said layer efficiently improves the luminance intensity, absent unexpected results (per claim 14).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herron (US 2017/0025609 A1) in view of Liao (US 2003/0170491).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Herron teaches the OLED of claim 10 but fails to mention a stacked configuration.
Liao teaches that a stacked organic light emitting device provides significantly improved luminance efficiency over the conventional non-stacked organic light emitting device (paragraph 27). The device configuration includes a stacked organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode, at least two organic electroluminescent units disposed between the anode and the cathode, and a doped organic connector (charge generation layer) disposed between each adjacent organic electroluminescent unit (abstract).
The office interprets the above as a clear indication that the prior art had an appreciation for the advantages of a stacked organic light emitting device over a conventional non-stacked organic light emitting device, namely improved luminance efficiency. Moreover, organic connector comprises at least one n-type doped organic layer or one p-type doped organic layer, or combinations of layers thereof which is viewed as encompassing organic connector containing a n-type doped organic layer and a p-type doped organic layer.
With the expectation of improving device performance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have modified the conventional non-stacked organic light emitting device of Herron which would have included adding additional organic light emitting unit(s) to form a stacked organic light emitting device configuration since Liao teaches that a stacked organic light emitting device is a means to improve luminance efficiency over the conventional non-stacked organic light emitting device, absent unexpected results (per claims 15-16).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herron (US 2017/0025609 A1) in view of Park (US 2018/0226585 A1).
Regarding Claims 17-18, Herron teaches applicants” OLED which can be used in a display device (paragraph 247), but fails to mention a control unit for controlling the display device
Park teaches an electronic device (above OLED) including a display device and a control unit for controlling the display device (paragraph 68).
As Herron and Park both teach OLEDs used in display devices and Park teaches a control unit for controlling the display device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have incorporated the control unit taught by Park reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claims 17-18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
A comprehensive search of the prior art did not show the inventive compound in an emitting auxiliary layer (per claim 12).
Response to Amendment
A new reference has been applied in response to the amendments.
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