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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11,15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The above claims require specific m/z values. The molecular ions are not limited by anything other than the numerical value of a given molecular ion. The specification shows limited examples of hole transport region materials such as a sulfonic acid compound; a fluorine compound, and a metal oxide (paragraph 14) which corresponds to the molecular ions upon mass spectroscopy analysis. While there are examples in the specification, these limited examples do not support the full scope of the claims which is not limited by any chemical class.
In mass spectrometry, a signal detected at \(m/z = 80\) corresponding to the sulfur trioxide radical anion is typically used as a diagnostic fragment or precursor scan marker. This signal relates to two major classes of sulfur-containing organic compounds; Organosulfates and Organosulfonates. Because this fragment ion is a broad structural marker, it is functionally related to thousands of individual chemical compounds spanning these two classes. The written description does not support such a massive scope. In the above claims.
The signal detected at a mass number that is 241, 161, or 81 less than that in a mass range ±2.0 of a target ion corresponds to a signal when one or more of sulfonic groups are removed from the target ion as a process to identify three specific compounds used in the hole transporting region. Said compounds used in the hole transporting region are not positively recited in the claims or described in the specification with any chemical features to provide a scope for a mass number that is 241, 161, or 81.
Because organic radicals, radical cations (polarons), and unbonded electrons inherently yield a g-value near the free-electron constant of approx 2.002, this parameter is a general characteristic of the charge-transport state rather than a constraint exclusive to a single substance. Patent definitions generally state that the requirement can be satisfied by at least one compound or a plurality of blending compounds that facilitate stable polaron formation.
The claim requires a g-value related to a generic charge transport state rather that a specific material or material class.
Applicants’ amendments render that claim of an undefined material scope type compound beyond the generic hole transporting designation.
By having a claim(s) written as such, the scope extends beyond the material requirements supported in the specification.
Applicant has provided no written description for identifying the materials of the hole transport region to show applicant was in full possession of the material (s) depth to meet the full of the scope of the invention in the cited claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4-5, 13-14, 17-21, 23, 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawano (US 2021/0336176).
Regarding Claims 4-5, 17-21, 27-31, Kawano teaches an light-emitting device including an anode, a cathode and an EL layer positioned between the anode and the cathode; containing EL layer 103 preferably has a stacked-layer structure, there is no particular limitation on the stacked-layer structure, and various layers such as a hole-injection layer, a hole-transport layer, a light-emitting layer, an electron-transport layer, an electron-injection layer, a carrier-blocking layer (a hole-blocking layer and an electron-blocking layer), an exciton-blocking layer, and a charge-generation layer can be employed. Note that one or more of the above layers are not necessarily provided (paragraph 194).
The hole-injection layer 111 includes a substance having an acceptor property (paragraph 195). The acceptor material includes molybdenum oxide, vanadium oxide, ruthenium oxide, tungsten oxide, and manganese oxide.
The electron-transport layer includes an organic compound having an electron-transport property and a metal complex of an alkali metal (abstract). The electron-transport property with respect to light with any of wavelengths in the range of 455 nm to 465 nm:
the ordinary refractive index of the metal complex of an alkali metal with respect to light with any of wavelengths in the range of 455 nm to 465 nm is greater than or equal to 1.50 and less than 1.75 (paragraph 15) (per claim 4).
the ordinary refractive index of the organic compound having an electron-transport property with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm is greater than or equal to 1.45 and less than or equal to 1.70; and the ordinary refractive index of the metal complex of an alkali metal with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm is greater than or equal to 1.40 and less than or equal to 1.65 (paragraph 17) (per claim 5).
The organic compound having an electron-transport property in the electron-transport layer 114 preferably includes at least one six-membered heteroaromatic ring having 1 to 3 nitrogen atoms, a plurality of aromatic hydrocarbon rings each of which has 6 to 14 carbon atoms forming a ring and at least two of which are benzene rings, and an organic compound having a plurality of hydrocarbon groups forming a bond by sp.sup.3 hybrid orbitals (paragraph 163) (per claim 17).
8-hydroxyquinolinato-lithium (Liq) may be provided as the electron-injection layer 115 between the electron-transport layer 114 (adjacent) and the cathode 102 (paragraph 243) (per claims 18 and 21).
The electron-transport layer includes an organic compound having a π-electron deficient heteroaromatic ring skeleton and a metal complex of an alkali metal (paragraph 32) (per claims 19-20)
In the light-emitting apparatus of this embodiment, the pixel portion, which includes a plurality of light-emitting devices (paragraph 285) (per claim 30). The light-emitting device having two light-emitting units, the emission colors of the first light-emitting unit may be red and green and the emission color of the second light-emitting unit may be blue (paragraph 262). Emission of a green color involves an iridium complex (paragraph 215) (per claims 14 and 27).
Blue color can be emitted by fluorescence (paragraph 210) (per claim 29)
Green and red emission is from phosphorescent compound (paragraphs 214 and 216) (per claim 28).
The OLED and electronic apparatus can include a display device (per claim (per claim 31)
Regarding Claims 32-34, Kawano teaches a light-emitting device the hole-transport range of claim 4. The application of the layers is viewed as a process.
Claim are as product-by process claims.
PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (per claims 32-33).
Regarding Claim 13, Kawano teaches a phosphorescent substance is used as the light-emitting substance in the light-emitting layer (paragraph 213). The phosphorescent substance is an iridium complex (paragraph 213) (per claim 13).
Regarding Claim 23, Kawano teaches 8-hydroxyquinolinato-lithium (Liq) may be provided as the electron-injection layer (paragraph 243) (per claim 23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 6-12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kawano (US 2021/0336176).
Regarding Claims 6-12 and 15, Kawano teaches the claimed hole transport region (above) but does not expressly teach the m/z ratio.
The office takes the position that m/z analysis generated by mass spectroscopy identifies the molecular ion of a given the hole transporting material (HTM). The method is a process and thus not treated. The selection of a suitable hole transporting material would include a host of HTM options which upon analysis would show a range of molecular ions corresponding to the various molecular weights of the HTMs. As the specification does not point to specific class of HTMs, the office takes the position that a range of suitable HTMs with differing molecular weights would have overlapped at least a portion of the claimed molecular ions, absent unexpected results. Therefore, the range of HTMs tested by a skilled artisan would have included HTMs which would have inherently corresponded to the claimed molecular ions, absent unexpected results.
It is reasonable to presume that the molecular ions are inherent as a range of HTMs would be tested with the expectation of achieving a functional hole transport region.
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 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (US 2021/0336176) in view of Lee (TW 201248960 A).
Regarding Claims 25-26, Kawano teaches an lithium fluoride (LiF), cesium fluoride (CsF), calcium fluoride (CaF.sub.2), or 8-hydroxyquinolinato-lithium (Liq) may be provided as the electron-injection layer (paragraph 243) but fails to mention barium.
Lee teaches an OLED (machine trans. page 43) comprising an electron injection layer made from lithium quinolate (Liq), lithiated fluorine (LiF), lithium oxide (Li 2 O), sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium fluoride (NaF), potassium fluoride (KF), cesium fluoride (CsF), barium fluoride (BaF), barium difluoride (BeF2), magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF2), barium fluoride (BaF2), barium oxide (BaO), or barium fluoride (BaF2) (machine trans. page 48).
The electron injection layer materials of Lee are viewed as functionally equivalent options which are readily exchangeable, absent unexpected results.
As both Kawano and Lee teach common electron injection materials such as (LiF), cesium fluoride (CsF), calcium fluoride (CaF.sub.2) and Lee also teaches a number barium materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have substituted in a barium material (which reads on the instant limitations) in place of a fluoride material (which reads on the instant limitations) as said materials would be expected to be functionally equivalent, absent unexpected results (per claim 26).
As both Kawano and Lee teach common electron injection materials and Lee teaches a sodium fluoride (NaF), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used NaF in the electron injection layer (which reads on the instant limitations) as said material would be expected to be functionally equivalent which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 24 are 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.
The prior art of record and the STN search fails to show:
Chemical Formula 1 (per claim 16)
wherein the heteroaromatic compound is 2-phenyl-9-[3-(9-phenyl-1,10-phenanthrolin- 2-yl)phenyl]-1,10-phenanthroline (per claim 24)
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
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