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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake (EP 3518303 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-17, Miyake teaches an organic electroluminescence device including a first electrode, a hole transport region disposed on the first electrode, an emission layer disposed on the hole transport region, an electron transport region disposed on the emission layer and a second electrode disposed on the electron transport region, in which the hole transport region includes a monoamine compound represented by Formula 1. Formula 1 can be represented by E17 (page 30):
PNG
media_image1.png
196
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
E17 reads on applicants’ Formula 1 and 3-2 wherein W1 = amino wherein Ar1 = biphenyl; L = phenylene; FF = naphthyl; Ar2 = phenyl (in Formula 2); R1 and R4 = H; W2 = CRa, Ra = H (per claims 1, 5-7, 13 and 16).
E17 reads on:
FF = Formula 2a = R4 and R5 = H (per claims 2 and 14).
FF = Formula 2-2= l; Ar2 = phenyl ; R4 = H (per claim 3, 15).
In the light of the specification (paragraph 00312) E17 is an amine compound which is a monoamine material wherein the carbazole is the first substituent; the phenylene group is the second substituent; the biphenyl group is the third substituent (per claim 11).
E17 shows L as phenylene (per claim 17).
Regarding Claim 8, Miyake teaches an organic electroluminescence device which has a hole transport region containing E17 as discussed above. The hole transport region may also contain an electron blocking layer (paragraph 61) containing a triphenylamine derivative represented by NPD (paragraph 71):
PNG
media_image2.png
288
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
NPD reads on applicants’ H-1 wherein Ara and Arb = carbazole; L1 and L2 = phenylene; Arc is a substituted phenyl; P and q = 7 (per claim 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Miyake teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising an emission layer containing a host material represented by Formula 10 (paragraph 76):
PNG
media_image3.png
637
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Generic Formula 10 reads on applicants’ generic Formula E1 as a 9,10-diphenyl anthracene (per claim 9).
Regarding Claim 10, Miyake teaches an organic electroluminescence device comprising a hole transport region HTR may include a hole injection layer H IL disposed on the first electrode EL 1, a hole transport layer HTL disposed on the hole injection layer HI L, and an electron blocking layer EBL disposed on the hole transport layer HTL; the hole transport layer HTL may include the monoamine compound represented by Formula 1 (E17 shown above) (paragraph 65) (per claim 10).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (EP 3518303 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Miyake teaches E17 in the hole transport region in an OLED. E17 is a positional isomer to M31 which only differ by the points of attachment to the phenylene linking group ortho versus para.
Position isomers are a basic form of close “structural isomers.” MPEP 2144.09, second paragraph, states, “Compounds which are position isomers … are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” It is well established that position isomers are prima facie structurally obvious even in the absence of a teaching to modify. The isomer is expected to be preparable by the same method and to have generally the same properties. This expectation is then deemed the motivation for preparing the position isomers. This circumstance has arisen many times. See: Ex parte Englehardt, 208 USPQ 343, 349 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1980); In re Mehta, 146 USPQ 284, 287 (C.C.P.A. 1965); In re Surrey, 138 USPQ 67 (C.C.P.A. 1963); Ex Parte Ullyot, 103 USPQ 185 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1952); In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (C.C.P.A. 1950); Ex Parte Naito, 168 USPQ 437, 439 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1969); Ex parte Allais, 152 USPQ 66 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1965); In re Wilder, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (C.C.P.A. 1970); Ex parte Henkel, 130 USPQ 474 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1960); Ex parte Biel, 124 USPQ 109 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1958); In re Petrzilka, 165 USPQ 327 (C.C.P.A. 1970); In re Crounse, 150 USPQ 554 (C.C.P.A. 1966); In re Fouche, 169 USPQ 429 (C.C.P.A. 1971); Ex parte Ruddy, 121 USPQ 427 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1955); In re Wiechert, 152 USPQ 247 (C.C.P.A. 1967), In re Shetty, 195 USPQ 753 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Jones, 74 USPQ 152, 154 (C.C.P.A. 1947); and In re Mayne, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997) {in which the Court took notice of the extreme similarity between the amino acids Leucine and isoleucine: “In fact, Leu is an isomer of Ile -- an identical chemical formula with differences only in the chemical bonding of the atoms. The side chains…of Leu and Ile have the same number of hydrogen and carbon atoms…The structure of Leu and Ile alone suggest their functional equivalency” (at pages 1454-1455)}.
For example, “Position isomerism has been used as a tool to obtain new and useful drugs” (Englehardt) and “Position isomerism is a fact of close structural similarity” (Mehta, emphasis in the original). Note also In re Jones, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), which states at 1943 “Particular types or categories of structural similarity without more, have, in past cases, given rise to prima facie obviousness”; one of those listed is “adjacent homologues and structural isomers”. Position isomers are the basic form of close “structural isomers.” Similar is In re Schechter and LaForge, 98 USPQ 144, 150 (C.C.P.A. 1953), which states “a novel useful chemical compound which is homologous or isomeric with compounds of the prior art is unpatentable unless it possesses some unobvious or unexpected beneficial property not possessed by the prior art compounds.” Note also In re Deuel 34 USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995) which states, “Structural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds … a known compound may suggest its analogs or isomers, either geometric isomers (cis v. trans) or position isomers (e.g., ortho v. para).” See also MPEP 2144.09, second paragraph.
Therefore, nothing unobvious is seen in substituting the known 3-isomer (E17) for the structurally similar 2-isomer, as taught by Miyake, since such structurally related compounds suggest one another and would be expected to share common properties absent a showing of unexpected results. In re Norris, 84 USPQ 458 (C.C.P.A. 1950) (per claim 12).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake (EP 3518303 A1) in view of Hatwar (US 2005/0048311).
Regarding Claims 18-20, Miyake teaches that OLEDs are used in display (paragraph 2) but fails to mention applicants’ display configuration).
Hartwar teaches display device can be constructed with an array or a plurality of OLEDs with different emission colors, typically blue, green, and red. This construction requires the fabrication of OLEDs of differing composition in the differently colored pixels (paragraph 35).
As both Miyake and Hatwar teach OLEDs and Hatwar teaches that display device can be constructed with a plurality of OLEDs with different emission colors such as blue, green, and red (different wavelengths), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used the OLED of Miyake in known application for OLEDs which would have included the in a display device constructed with a plurality of OLEDs as taught by Hatwar which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 18).
Based on the electromagnetic spectrum it is known in the art that blue, green, and red are primary color wherein the wavelengths move from low to high, respectively.
Additionally, it is known in the art that spacing light emitting layers apart can serve as a buffer to enhance device performance by aiding in prevent the mixing of excitons which promotes color purity.
The choice of how to order the color array is a matter well within the scope of a skilled artisan wherein the second wavelength is viewed as the green color (longer wavelength) and the third wavelength is viewed as the red color (second wavelength longer than the third wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected primary color, spaced the light emitting layers apart and to have adjusted the sequence of colors as a matter of preference or design which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per clams 19-20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
The prior art of record fails to show the claimed invention.
FF of claim 4.
Conclusion
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