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 .
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.
Restriction/Election Requirement
The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s election of Group 2 (first and second host materials are same) in the Response filed 06/25/26.
The election reads on Claims 1-20.
Claims 1-20 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Specification filed 02/01/23 recites the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
100
118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 14) which is illegible due to its low resolution. The structure needs to be replaced by one with clearer graphics (i.e., with solid lines).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim, which is dependent on Claim 16 (and thus on Claim 1), recites “the first layer” which lack antecedent basis. The Office has interpreted the term to refer to “the first light-emitting layer” for the purpose of this Examination.
Correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. (US 2020/0403173 A1).
Miyashita et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device (organic light-emitting element):
PNG
media_image2.png
472
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
comprising insulating layer (1), anode (2), hole-transporting layer (3), third light-emitting layer (4c) and first light-emitting layers (4b) (second light-emitting layer), second light-emitting layer (4b) (first light-emitting layer), electron-transporting layer (5), and cathode (6) ([0030]). Miyashita et al. discloses that each of the light-emitting layers comprises a host material and dopant material ([0055]); the first and third light-emitting layers emit in the red and green (i.e., comprises red and green-emitting dopant materials), while the second light-emitting layer emits in the blue (i.e., comprises blue-emitting dopant material) ([0071]). Miyashita et al. discloses the following embodiment for the host material:
PNG
media_image3.png
179
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(page 6) (first and second host materials) (equivalent to Applicant’s EM1 with HOMO = -6.02 eV and LUMO = -3.10 eV; see Table 1 of the present national phase publication), blue-emitting dopant material:
PNG
media_image4.png
360
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 13) (first dopant material) (equivalent to Applicant’s BD19 with HOMO = -6.11 eV and LUMO = -3.48 eV; see Table 1 of the present national phase publication), red-emitting dopant material:
PNG
media_image5.png
282
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 25) (second dopant material) (equivalent to Applicant’s RD5 with HOMO = -5.61 eV and LUMO = -3.63 eV; see Table 1 of the present national phase publication), and green-emitting dopant material:
PNG
media_image6.png
180
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(page 21) (third dopant material) (equivalent to Applicant’s GD3 with HOMO = -5.40 eV and LUMO = -2.60 eV; see Table 1 of the present national phase publication). Miyashita et al. requires the following condition to be satisfied:
PNG
media_image7.png
34
388
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0009]) (such that LUMOh1 > LUMOd1 [1] as recited in Claim 1 is satisfied as the second light-emitting layer of Miyashita et al. corresponds to the “first light-emitting layer”). Miyashita et al. discloses the following material to comprise the electron-transporting layer:
PNG
media_image8.png
272
398
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(page 32) (equivalent to Applicant’s ET2 with HOMO = -6.12 eV and LUMO = -3.07 eV; see Table 1 of the present national phase publication). Miyashita et al. discloses the additional presence of a hole-blocking layer (functional layer) between the electron-transporting layer and the second light-emitting layer (first light-emitting layer) ([0094]); the hole-blocking layer comprises electron-transporting materials ([0100]) such as any one of the following:
PNG
media_image9.png
488
424
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
872
418
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(page 33) (composed of a hydrocarbon alone), among others (pages 32-34). However, Miyashita et al. does not explicitly disclose an organic EL device that reads on condition [3] as recited in Claim 1. Nevertheless, it is the position of the Office that the incorporation of any one of the electron-transporting materials as disclosed by Miyashita et al. (including the hydrocarbon materials shown above) into the hole-blocking layer (functional layer) would inherently result in HOMOFL > HOMOh1 (-6.02 eV). The motivation is provided by the fact it has been long established that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see also MPEP 2144.05). Miyashita et al. explicitly discloses a wide class of electron-transporting materials (and thus having a wide range of HOMO values) any one of which can be incorporated into the hole-blocking layer during the normal course of experimentation. It is the position of the Office that the incorporation of ET10 as disclosed by Miyashita et al. (above), for example, would result in condition [3] being met as ET10, a compound with significantly less conjugation (electronic delocalization) to that of Applicant’s FL4:
PNG
media_image11.png
282
412
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(HOMO = -6.04 eV; see Table 1 of the present national phase publication) can be reasonably expected to have significantly higher HOMO value (thus also satisfying condition [7] as recited in Claim 10).
Miyashita et al. further discloses displays (such as those shown in Figs. 5A, 5B, and 6A), a display apparatus comprising a plurality of pixels, wherein at least one of the pixels comprises the organic EL device (Claim 16), an image pickup apparatus comprising an optical unit including a plurality of lenses, an image pickup element configured to receive light that has passed through the optical unit, and a display unit (Claim 17), an illumination apparatus comprising a light source (comprising the organic EL device) and a light diffusion unit (Claim 18), and a moving object comprising a lighting fixture comprising the organic EL device with a body (Claim 10), and an exposure light source (comprising the organic EL device) in an electrophotographic image-forming apparatus ([0129]).
Conclusion
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