Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 37 1.84(u)(1) because “[w]here only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.”
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.
Claims 2-6 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. These claims depend on claim 1 and recite “the organic electroluminescent element according to claim 1,” but claim 1 does not present any one particular organic electroluminescent element. The use of “the organic” in these claims should be changed to “an organic”. In addition, the formulae (Y2) to (Y9), (Y11) to (Y18) and (Y21) to (Y298) in claim 6 do not have an antecedent basis in claim 1. Perhaps claim 6 should be amended to depend on claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018/062505 A to Araya et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation).
Araya et al. discloses an OLED wherein the hole injection layer (HIL) comprises the carbazole compound
PNG
media_image1.png
274
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
which is exemplified by
PNG
media_image2.png
190
172
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound is representative of the compound for formula 22 in claim 7 wherein Ar6 is formula 45 (R5 = H), and Ar4 and Ar5 are monocyclic linked or fused aromatic hydrocarbon group with 6 carbon atoms. Claims 7-8 are therefore anticipated. Claim 1 is also anticipated because the prior art compound, being identical to the claimed material, must have the same transverse current-suppressing property. See MPEP § 2112(I). So are claims 2 and 4-5. An example that reads on claim 3 is the following compound
PNG
media_image3.png
198
192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The features of claims 10, 13-17 and 19-20 are disclosed on page 50 of the translation. So are those of claim 11 because the feature compound, like A9 and A10 above, is a hole-transporting triarylamine compound, and claim 11 does not preclude the 3rd compound from being identical to the 1st compound.
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 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018/062505 A to Araya et al. in view of US 2004/0265630 A1 to Suh et al.
While Araya et al. teaches the use of the feature triarylamine compound in the HIL that further includes an electron-accepting dopant, it fails to suggest a doping concentration. On the other hand, Suh et al. discloses an OLED wherein the HIL comprises a hole-transporting host such as an arylamine [0033] and an electron-accepting dopant [0029-0030], wherein the doping concentration is 0.01-50 wt%, preferably, 0.01-10 wt% [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the device disclosed by Araya et al. by employing 0.01-10 wt% of the electron acceptor in the HIL, i.e., the content of the diarylaminocarbazole compound in the HIL is 90-99.99 wt%, so as to optimize the performance of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is not an obvious reason for a POSITA to modify the compound disclosed by Araya et al., which represents the closest prior art of record, to arrive at the claimed compounds.
Other Prior Art of Record
The compound of claim 1 is also disclosed by US 2016/0111653 A1 to Itoi and WO 2016/153283 A1 to Kang et al.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, ROBERT JONES can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights