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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-217949, filed on 12/25/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/23/2023, 07/25/2023, 08/04/2023, 01/09/2024, 09/03/2025, 12/01/2025, and 09/17/2026 have been received by the office. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the preliminary amendments, the claims, specification, drawings, and abstract were amended.
These amendments are hereby entered.
Claims 1-49 were originally filed.
Claims 19, 25-26, 30-32, 35-36, 38, 40, 42 and 44-48 are canceled.
Claims 3-9, 15-18, 20-24, 27, 29, 30-34, 37, 39, 41, 43, and 49 are instantly amended.
Claims 1-18, 20-24, 27-29, 33-34, 27, 29, 41, 43, and 49 are pending in the application.
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 1-18, 20-24, 27-29, 33-34, 27, 29, 41, 43, and 49 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.
Independent claim 1 requires an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode and a cathode with an emitting layer between the anode and cathode and a hole transporting zone between the anode and the emitting layer. The hole transporting zone comprises a first and second organic compound layer and the first organic compound layer comprises a first organic compound in a mass percent of 10% or less and a second organic compound. The emitting layer comprises a first and second emitting layer, wherein the first emitting layer comprises a first host material and first emitting material which emits light having a maximum peak wavelength of 500 nm or less, and the second emitting layer comprises a second host compound which is different from the first host compound and a second emitting compound which also has a maximum peak wavelength of 500 nm or less. The triplet energy of the first host material is greater than the triplet energy of the second host material. The instant description only provides one example of such a combination that meets this requirement. Additionally, while the instant specification provides general formulae and example compounds with which to form additional embodiments, example compounds generally share a common structure such as a pyrene, an anthracene, or a monoamine. There is simply not enough diversity of structure nor is there enough evidence to support a claim to a device with the claimed structure, comprising any conceivable first and second emitting compound have a maximum wavelength of 500 nm or less, and any conceivable first and second host material wherein the first host material has a higher triplet energy than the second host material. The limited examples described in the written description does not provide a representative number of species sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see MPEP 2163-II-A-3-a-ii).
Claims 2-18, 20-24, 27-29, 33-34, 27, 29, 41, 43, and 49 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-18, 20-24, 27-29, 33-34, 27, 29, 41, 43, and 49 are 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.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim comprises a first limitation that requires a first organic compound layer comprising a first and second organic material. However, the claim also comprises a second limitation wherein the content of the first organic material in the first organic compound layer is less than 10 mass%. This introduces uncertainty into the claim because it is unclear whether the first organic material is required according to the first limitation, or whether the first organic material is absent (0%) according to the second limitation.
In continuing examination, the first organic material is being interpreted as present in a mass % of up to 10% or as absent.
Claims 2-18, 20-24, 27-29, 33-34, 27, 29, 41, 43, and 49 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-17, 21-24, 27-29, 33-34, 27, 29, 41, 43, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1) and further in view of Maier-Flaig et al. (US 2023/0058635 A1), as evidenced by Saitoh, A.; Yamada, N.; Yashima, M.; Okinaka, K.; Senoo, A.; Ueno, K.; Tanak, D.; Yashiro, R. Novel Fluorene-Based Blue Emitters for High Performance OLEDS. SID Symp. Dig. Tech. Pap. 2004, 35, 150-153. DOI: 10.1889/1.1825781) and Li et al. (WO 2019/206292 A1, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claim 1, Fujita discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode (ITO), a hole injection layer, a first hole transport layer (a first organic compound layer), a second hole transport layer (a second organic compound layer), a first emitting layer, a second emitting layer, an electron transport zone, and a cathode (paragraph 0518, Example 1, table 1).
Fujita teaches that the electron transport and electron injection materials may be formed by mixing the electron transport and electron injection materials (paragraph 0268, lines 8-12). Fujita also gives examples of suitable electron injection and electron transport materials through compounds HAT-CN and HT-1 (page 174), respectively, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
266
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
402
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fujita also teaches the first emitting layer comprises a first host material and the second emitting layer comprises a second host material. Fujita also gives examples of a suitable first host material and a suitable second host material through compounds 2-1001 (page 70) and 1-134-O (page 4), respectively, which are pictured below.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
298
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fujita also teaches that an example of a suitable first host material is represented by compound (2-218) (page 45), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image5.png
236
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Compound (2-218) is derived from Fujita formula (2) (paragraph 0011), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
194
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In Formula (2), Fujita also teaches that the spirobifluorenylene group of Ar (Ar-1-1, paragraph 0053), can be a fluorenylene group (Z is CR2, paragraph 0055), and that any hydrogen atom can be replaced by deuterium (paragraph 0059).
Such a modification produces the compound below.
PNG
media_image7.png
258
498
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fujita also teaches that the first and second emitting layers comprise a first and second light emitting materials, which are both represented by compound 3-139 (Table 1, page 171), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image8.png
242
340
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner is interpreting the compound HAT-CN to meet the requirements of the instant first organic compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the first organic compound, as given in paragraph [0250] of the instant specification.
Examiner is interpreting the compound HT-1 to meet the requirements of the instant second organic compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the second organic compound, as given in paragraph [0318] (row 2, column 1) of the instant specification.
Examiner is interpreting the compound 1-134-O to meet the requirements of the instant second host compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the second host compound, as given in paragraph [0735] (row 5, column 2) of the instant specification.
Examiner is interpreting modified compound 2-1223 to meet the requirements of the instant first host compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the first host compound, as given in paragraph [0672] (row 6) of the instant specification.
Examiner is interpreting the compound 3-139 to meet the requirements of the instant first and second emitting compounds through its use as a preferred embodiment of the first and second emitting compounds, as given in compound BD (paragraph 1108) of the instant specification.
Fujita includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Fujita being a lack of the aforementioned modified first host compound being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a deuterated compound with a fluorenylene group from the finite list of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic light emitting element with a two-layered emitting layer using two or more types of host materials, wherein recombination takes place at a position apart from the interface between the two emitting layers, suppressing flow of carriers into the adjacent layer, and improving carrier balance, leading to improvement in efficiency and lifetime of the organic light emitting element (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Fujita read on the claims.
Fujita is silent to the maximum emissive wavelength of the emissive compound, the triplet energy of the first host material, and the triplet energy of the second host material. However, these are considered to be a properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when each compound is used in each respective layer of an organic electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Fujita, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed device composition and the device composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Fujita was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
However, Fujita does not teach what percentage composition of hole injection compound (HAT-CN) and hole transport compound (HT-1) a mixed hole injection/transport layer should comprise.
In analogous art, Maier-Flaig teaches an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a light emitting layer, a first hole transport layer, H1, disposed between the anode and the light emitting layer, and a second hole transport layer, H2, disposed between H1 and the emitting layer (abstract and paragraphs 0157-0159).
Examiner notes that in the device of Maier-Flaig, the first hole transport layer, H1 is analogous to the instant first organic compound layer.
Maier-Flaig teaches that layer H1 may be p-doped (paragraph 0137) in the amount of 1% to 10% of the p-doped layer (paragraph 0139), and examples of suitable p-dopants include HAT-CN (compound D-11, page 565).
Maier-Flaig is effective in demonstrating that adding a p-dopant, such as HAT-CN to form a mixed hole injection/transport layer between an anode and another hole transport layer in the amount of 1 to 10 % concentration was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a mixed hole injection/transport layer in the device of Fujita with the p-dopant HAT-CN present in a concentration of less than 10 %, as taught by Maier-Flaig.
With respect to claims 2, 3, and 4, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting compound the compound 1-134-O to meet the requirements of the instant second host compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the second host compound, as given in paragraph [0735] (row 5, column 2) of the instant specification.
Examiner is interpreting modified compound 2-1223 to meet the requirements of the instant first host compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the first host compound, as given in paragraph [0672] (row 6) of the instant specification.
Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Fujita read on the claims.
Fujita is silent to the hole mobilities and electron mobilities of the first and second host materials. However, these are considered to be a properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when each compound is used in each respective layer of an organic electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Fujita, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed device composition and the device composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Fujita was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 5, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, and the first organic material, HAT-CN, comprises a moiety of instant formula (P11) when Z1 is C-CN, Z2 and Z5 are nitrogen atoms, and Z3 and Z4 are fused to the rest of the organic material, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 6, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, and the second organic material, HT-1, is represented by formula (21) when A1 is a substituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms (carbazolyl), LA1, LB1, and LC1 are each an unsubstituted arylene (phenylene) group of 6 ring carbon atoms, and B1 and C1 are each an unsubstituted aryl (phenyl) group having 6 carbon ring atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 7, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, and the monoamine compound having one substituted amino group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 8, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, and each layer comprises different compounds, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 9, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, and the second organic compound layer is between the first organic compound layer and the first emitting layer, and the second organic compound layer comprises a third organic material, HT-2 (Table 1, Example 1, page 171).
With respect to claim 10, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 9, and the second organic compound layer is in direct contact with the emitting layer (Table 1, Example 1, page 171), as discussed above.
With respect to claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 10, and the first light emitting layer, comprising modified host compound 2-1223, is in direct contact with the second organic compound layer, as discussed above, and the second organic compound layer comprises a third organic material, HT-2 (Table 1, Example 1, page 171), which is pictured below (page 174).
PNG
media_image9.png
534
608
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner is interpreting the compound HT-2 to meet the requirements of the instant third organic compound as evidenced by Li which teaches that compound HT-2 (compound HTII-37 of Li, paragraph 0089), has a HOMO value of -5.7 eV (Table 0001, paragraph 0308).
Examiner is interpreting modified compound 2-1223 to meet the requirements of the instant first host compound as evidenced by Saitoh which teaches that the undeuterated, isotopic analog of modified 2-1223 (DPYFL01), has a HOMO value of -5.70 eV (Table 1, page 150).
Examiner notes that the absolute value of the difference between the HOMO energy level of the two compounds is 0 eV, which meets the requirements of the instant claims.
With respect to claim 16, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 9, and compound HT-2 is represented by instant formula (310) when A3 and B3 are an unsubstituted heteroaryl (dibenzofuranyl) group with 13 ring forming atoms, C3 is a C3 aryl (phenyl) group, and LA3, LB3, and LC3 are each a C6 phenylene group, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 17, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 9, and the first and second organic compound layers are in direct contact, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 9, and the third organic material is a monoamine of instant formula cHT3-4 when Ar311 is represented by formula (1-a), Ar312 and Ar313 are an unsubstituted heterocyclic group having 13 ring atoms (dibenzofuranyl), and LD1, LD2, and LD3 are all an unsubstituted arylene (phenylene) group. In formula (1-a), R51-R55 are hydrogen atoms, as pictured above.
With respect to claim 23, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, and the second organic material is represented by instant formula cHT2-1 when Ar112 and Ar113 are an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl), and LA1, LA2, and LA3 are all an unsubstituted arylene of 6 carbon atoms (phenylene), as pictured above.
With respect to claim 24, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 22, and the second organic material is represented by instant formula cHT2-1 when Ar112 and Ar113 are an unsubstituted aryl group of 6 ring carbon atoms (phenyl), and LA1, LA2, and LA3 are all an unsubstituted arylene of 6 carbon atoms (phenylene), as pictured above.
With respect to claims 27, 28, and 29, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, and the second organic material is a monoamine comprising a group of formula (2-a) when R251-R255 are hydrogen atoms which is bonded to the central amine via a phenylene group, and no thiophene is present, as pictured above.
With respect to claims 33, 34, 37, 39, and 41, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner is interpreting the compound 1-134-O to meet the requirements of the instant second host compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the second host compound, as given in paragraph [0735] (row 5, column 2) of the instant specification.
Examiner is interpreting modified compound 2-1223 to meet the requirements of the instant first host compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the first host compound, as given in paragraph [0672] (row 6) of the instant specification.
Examiner is interpreting the compound 3-139 to meet the requirements of the instant first and second emitting compounds through its use as a preferred embodiment of the first and second emitting compounds, as given in compound BD (paragraph 1108) of the instant specification.
Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Fujita read on the claims.
Fujita is silent to the singlet and triplet energy of the first and second host materials and the first emitting compound. However, these are considered to be a properties of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when each compound is used in each respective layer of an organic electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Fujita, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed device composition and the device composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Fujita was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
With respect to claim 43, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Fujita also teaches that the first host material may be represented by formula (2-422) (page 56), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image10.png
536
438
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Compound (2-422) is derived from Fujita formula (2) (paragraph 0011), which is pictured below.
PNG
media_image6.png
194
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In Formula (2), Fujita also teaches that s is 2 and p is 1 (paragraph 0019), and that any hydrogen atom can be replaced by deuterium (paragraph 0059).
Such a modification produces the compound below.
PNG
media_image11.png
264
394
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fujita includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Fujita being a lack of the aforementioned modified first host compound being explicitly stated. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a deuterated compound with a fluorenylene group from the finite list of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable result of an organic light emitting element with a two-layered emitting layer using two or more types of host materials, wherein recombination takes place at a position apart from the interface between the two emitting layers, suppressing flow of carriers into the adjacent layer, and improving carrier balance, leading to improvement in efficiency and lifetime of the organic light emitting element (paragraph 0009), commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Examiner is interpreting modified compound 2-422 to meet the requirements of the instant first host compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the first host compound, as given in paragraph [0677] (row 3) of the instant specification.
This compound also meets the requirements of the instant claim wherein the benzonaphthofuran moiety comprises a naphthalene group which is bonded to a benzene group through one single bond and one cross-linking ether bond.
With respect to claim 49, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 1, and Fujita also teaches that conventionally, a luminescent element may be employed in an electronic device such as a display apparatus (paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electroluminescent device in an electronic device such as a display apparatus, as taught by Fujita.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0280209 A1) and further in view of Maier-Flaig et al. (US 2023/0058635 A1), as evidenced by Saitoh et al. (Saitoh, A.; Yamada, N.; Yashima, M.; Okinaka, K.; Senoo, A.; Ueno, K.; Tanak, D.; Yashiro, R. Novel Fluorene-Based Blue Emitters for High Performance OLEDS. SID Symp. Dig. Tech. Pap. 2004, 35, 150-153. DOI: 10.1889/1.1825781) and Li et al. (WO 2019/206292 A1, using the provided translation for references), as applied above, and further in view of Ha et al. (KR 2017/0134163 A, using the provided translation for references).
With respect to claims 18 and 20, Fujita and Maier-Flaig teach the device of claim 9, as discussed above.
However, neither Fujita nor Maier-Flaig teach that the first and second organic compound layers have the claimed refractive index ratio.
In analogous art, Ha teaches an organic light emitting device with a first hole transport layer and a second hole transport layer (hole control layer) wherein the hole transport layer is between the anode and the emitting layer and comprises a compound of Formula 1, such as HTM3, and the second hole transport layer is between the first hole transport layer and the emitting layer and comprises a compound of Formula 2, such as HTM6 (paragraph 0007 and Table 2, Example 1 on page 133 of the original document).
Compounds HTM3 and HTM6 are pictured below (Table 1).
PNG
media_image12.png
212
230
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
272
226
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Ha teaches that when a first organic layer and second organic layer described are used between an anode and emitting layer in an organic light-emitting device, the layers enable improved efficiency, lower driving voltage, and improved lifespan characteristics (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use compounds of Ha as a second and third organic material in the device of Fujita and Maier-Flaig in order to enable improved efficiency, lower driving voltage, and improved lifespan characteristics, as taught by Ha.
Examiner is interpreting the compound HTM3 to meet the requirements of the instant second organic compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the second organic compound, as given in paragraph [0332] (row 4) of the instant specification.
Examiner is interpreting the compound HTM6 to meet the requirements of the instant third organic compound through its use as a preferred embodiment of the third organic compound, as given in paragraph [0389] (row 2) of the instant specification.
Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and it has been held that when the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (See MPEP 2112.01(II)), and the compounds of Ha read on the claims.
Ha is silent to the refractive indices of the first and second organic compound materials. However, the refractive index of a compound is considered to be a property of the composition. Support for this presumption comes from the use of like materials and like processes when each compound is used in each respective layer of an organic electroluminescent device, which would result in the claimed properties described in the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are considered to be obvious over Ha, and the burden shifts to applicant to show that there is an unobvious difference between the claimed device composition and the device composition in the prior art. See MPEP 2112 (V). In addition, the presently claimed properties are considered to be present once the work of Ha was first provided. See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL SIMBANA whose telephone number is (571)272-2657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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.
/RACHEL SIMBANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights