CTNF 18/320,093 CTNF 95254 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. In chemical patent abstracts for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as its use. MPEP 608.01(b) The instant Abstract is directed to the structural features of the inventive compound. It is suggested to include descriptions of use and/or application of the compound to better describe the instant invention. An exemplary term includes an organic light emitting device ([0001] and [0007]). When the abstract is amended, it is reminded that the length does not exceed 15 lines of text and 150 words. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should not exceed 15 lines of text. Abstracts exceeding 15 lines of text or 150 words should be checked to see that they are as concise as the disclosure permits. MPEP 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Han et al. (CN 109232586 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Han) . Regarding claims 1-6 and 8 , Han discloses an organic Compound 20 (see page 16 of the original document and page 10 of the English translation). PNG media_image1.png 363 694 media_image1.png Greyscale The Compound 20 of Han has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (1), wherein Ar is a substituted phenanthrene, wherein the substituent is a substituted alkyl group (i.e. imidazole-substituted methyl); R 1 to R 4 , R 6 to R 13 , R 15 to R 21 are each hydrogen; R 5 and R 14 are each a substituted alkyl group (i.e. imidazole-substituted methyl); Ar is represented by formula (2) -A-B, wherein A is a direct bond; B is Formula (9), PNG media_image2.png 182 230 media_image2.png Greyscale , wherein R 100 to R 103 and R 105 to R 108 are each hydrogen; R 104 is a substituted alkyl group; in formula (1), Ar further contains an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom (i.e. imidazole-substituted methyl); R 5 and R 14 contains a substituent which is an alkyl group having 1 carom atom, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-6 . With respect to claim 8, claim 8 recites “Ar contains no electron-withdrawing substituent”. Claim 8 does not provide clear limitation of the electron-withdrawing substituent. For example, the claim does not provide how much electron-withdrawing ability is required to be considered as an electron withdrawing substituent, or which structural properties are required to be considered as an electron withdrawing substituent. Claims should be interpreted in the broadest reasonable way (BRI) in light of specification. The specification states “Examples of the electron-withdrawing substituent include a pyridyl group, a pyrimidinyl group, a pyrazinyl group, and a triazinyl group.” The Compound 20 of Han does not contain any of the pyridyl, pyrimidinyl, pyrazinyl, or triazinyl group; thus, the Compound 20 of Han reads on the limitations of claim 8 . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Parham et al. (US 20170033296 A1, hereafter Parham) . Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-8 , Parham discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0006]) and exemplifies Compound 5p ([0137], page 118). PNG media_image3.png 314 653 media_image3.png Greyscale The Compound 5p of Parham has identical structure as Applicant’s formula (1), wherein Ar is a substituted aryl group; R- 1 to R 18 , R 20 , and R 21 are each hydrogen; R 19 is a substituted amino group; A is a direct bond; Ar is formula (3), wherein R 30 is a substituted amino group; Ar further contains an amino group containing an aryl group; meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 7-8 . It is noted that there is no further limitation which substituents can be the substituents of the substituted aryl group at the position Ar and the substituted amino group at the position R 19 , and there is no restriction in the claim to prevent connection of the two substituents. Thus, the Compound 5p of Parham reads on all the limitations of Applicant’s formula (1) because the aryl group at the position Ar and the amino group at the position R 19 are each substituted, wherein the claim limitation of the substitution includes the connected state of two substituents in BRI . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 20170033296 A1) as evidenced by Kondakova et al. (“Highly efficient fluorescent-phosphorescent triple-harvesting hybrid organic light-emitting diodes” J. Appl. Phys. 2010, vol. 107, page 014515, hereafter Kondakova) and Montalti et al. (“Handbook of Photochemistry”, 3 rd edition, Taylor & Francis, 2006, hereafter Montalti) . Regarding claims 9-14 , Parham discloses a compound (Formula 1) used for an organic light emitting device ([0006]) and exemplifies Compound 5p ([0137], page 118). PNG media_image3.png 314 653 media_image3.png Greyscale The Compound 5p has identical structure as Applicant’s formula (1) of claim 1 as outlined above. Parham does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound 5p; however, Parham does teach that the compound of Parham can be used as the host (“matrix”) material for a phosphorescent dopant ([0006]). Parham teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, the compound of Formula 1 of Parham 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode (Example I11 in Table 2). PNG media_image4.png 306 520 media_image4.png Greyscale At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 5p of Parham by incorporating it into the light emitting layer of an organic light emitting device as taught by Parham. The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of host materials represented by Formula 1 of Parham in the device of Parham would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Parham comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode, wherein the compound TEG1 is a first compound; and the Compound IC1 is a second compound, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-10. With respect to claim 12, the Compound 5p has 45 volume percentage of the entire light emitting layer ([0152]). Assuming that the volume of each molecule in the light emitting layer is similar to each other, dividing the volume ratio of 45:45:10 by the molecular weight of each molecule provides weight ratio being around 41:47:12. Thus, the weight percentage of the Compound 5p is around 47%, meeting all the limitations of claim 12. With respect to claim 13, the Compound TEG1 reads on all the limitations of claim 13 because there are three rings fused to each other including one pyridine ring, one phenyl ring, and one metalacyclic ring consisting of an Ir atom, three carbon atoms, and a nitrogen atom, meeting all the limitations of claim 13. With respect to claim 14, the Compound TEG1 reads on all the limitations of claim 14 because the condensed ring of a pyridine ring, a phenyl ring, and a metalacyclic ring is equated with a heterocyclic group comprising 12 carbon atoms, meeting all the limitations of claim 14. The Modified organic light emitting device of Parham reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including 1) the compound TEG1 has lower lowest excited triplet energy (hereafter T1 energy) than the Compound 5p. It is reasonable to presume that the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham inherently possesses the property 1). Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. Kondakova evidences the T1 energy of Ir(ppy)3 is 2.49 eV. The compound TEG1 has substantially similar structure as Ir(ppy)3. Thus, the T1 energy of TEG1 should be around 2.49 eV. The instant specification provides the T1 energy of the Compound 1 (Table 1 on page 9) being 2.66 eV. The Compound 5p of Parham has similar structure as Compound 1 in that a central phenylene substituted by two phenanthrenyl and one phenyl. The carbazole should affect increasing the T1 energy as evidenced by Montalti below. Thus, the T1 energy of Compound 5p of Parham should be similar to 2.66 eV. Additionally, Montalti evidences the T1 energy of N-phenyl carbazole is 3.05 eV (294 kJ/mol) (page 205), and the T1 energy of phenanthrene is 2.70 eV (260 kJ/mol) (page 195). Because the Compound 5p consists of an N-phenyl carbazole group and phenanthrene groups, the T1 energy of the compound should be in-between or similar to 2.70 eV to 3.05 eV. Therefore, the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham possesses the properties including 1) the compound TEG1 has lower lowest excited triplet energy (hereafter T1 energy) than the Compound 5p, meeting all the limitations of claim 11 . The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Modified organic light emitting device of Parham is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 20170033296 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2003/0068535 A1, hereafter Takiguchi) as evidenced by Kondakova et al. (“Highly efficient fluorescent-phosphorescent triple-harvesting hybrid organic light-emitting diodes” J. Appl. Phys. 2010, vol. 107, page 014515) and Montalti et al. (“Handbook of Photochemistry”, 3 rd edition, Taylor & Francis, 2006) . Regarding claims 9-15 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham reads on all the features of claim 9 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode. The phosphorescent dopant TEG1 does not contain a fluorene skeleton; however, Parham does teach that any phosphorescent complex used for phosphorescent OLED can be used. Parham exemplifies Ir(ppy)3 ([0105]). Takiguchi discloses an Ir complex comprising an aromatic group of Formula (5) and used for an organic light emitting device ([0034]-[0044]). Takiguchi exemplifies Compound 23 ([0139]). PNG media_image5.png 271 237 media_image5.png Greyscale Takiguchi teaches that incorporation of the aromatic group of Formula (5) of Takiguchi provides an ability to control emission wavelength (particularly to a long emission wavelength), enhanced solubility which facilitates purification and recrystallization, suppressed thermal activation, and reduced quenching ([0085]-[0086]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham by substituting the phosphorescent emitter with the Compound 23 of Takiguchi. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide an ability to control emission wavelength (particularly to a long emission wavelength), enhanced solubility which facilitates purification and recrystallization, suppressed thermal activation, and reduced quenching. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Takiguchi comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and Compound 23 of Takiguchi 10%), and a second electrode, wherein the Compound 23 of Takiguchi is a first compound; and the Compound IC1 is a second compound. The Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Takiguchi reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including 1) the first Compound 23 of Takiguchi has lower T1 energy than the Compound 5p of Parham. It is reasonable to presume that the Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Takiguchi inherently possesses the property 1). Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. Kondakova evidences the T1 energy of Ir(ppy)3 is 2.49 eV. The Compound 23 of Takiguchi has similar structure as Ir(ppy)3. The only difference is the phenyl ring is substituted by dimethyl fluorene. The Compound 23 of Takiguchi has smaller band gap than Ir(ppy)3 due to the more conjugation of the phenyl ring while the LUMO levels are similar due to the same pyridine ring in both compounds. Because the LUMO level are similar and the band gap is smaller than Ir(ppy)3, it is expected that the T1 energy of the Compound 23 of Takiguchi is similar or smaller than the T1 energy of Ir(ppy)3 which is 2.49 eV. The instant specification provides the T1 energy of the Compound 1 (Table 1 on page 9) being 2.66 eV. The Compound 5p of Parham has similar structure as Compound 1 in that a central phenylene substituted by two phenanthrenyl and one phenyl. The carbazole should affect increasing the T1 energy as evidenced by Montalti below. Thus, the T1 energy of Compound 5p of Parham should be similar to 2.66 eV. Additionally, Montalti evidences the T1 energy of N-phenyl carbazole is 3.05 eV (294 kJ/mol) (page 205), and the T1 energy of phenanthrene is 2.70 eV (260 kJ/mol) (page 195). Because the Compound 5p is made of an N-phenyl carbazole group and phenanthrene groups, the T1 energy of the compound should be in-between or similar to 2.70 eV to 3.05 eV. Therefore, the Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Takiguchi possesses the properties including 1) the compound 23 of Takiguchi has lower lowest excited triplet energy (hereafter T1 energy) than the Compound 5p. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Takiguchi is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 20170033296 A1) as applied to claims 9-14 above, further in view of Reineke et al. (“White organic light-emitting diodes: status and perspective” Rev. Mod. Phys. 2013, vol. 85, page 1245-1293, hereafter Reineke) as evidenced by Kondakova et al. (“Highly efficient fluorescent-phosphorescent triple-harvesting hybrid organic light-emitting diodes” J. Appl. Phys. 2010, vol. 107, page 014515) and Montalti et al. (“Handbook of Photochemistry”, 3 rd edition, Taylor & Francis, 2006) . Regarding claims 9-14 and 16-17 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham reads on all the features of claim 9 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode. The device is not a white light emitting device because TEG1 is a green phosphorescent emitter. However, Parham does teach that the compound of Parham can be used as a host material for fluorescent or phosphorescent dopants ([0093]) and Parham further teaches a white emitting device can be formed by staking three emitting layers ([0098]). Reineke taches a white light emitting device can be formed by forming a light emitting layer comprising a mixture of red, green, and blue dopants (Fig. 1e) or forming a light emitting layer comprising red, green, and blue sublayers (Fig. 1f). Reineke teaches Ir(1-piq)3 as a red dopant, Ir(ppy)3 as a green dopant, and MABQ as a blue dopant (Table III). The compound TEG1 has substantially similar structure as Ir(ppy)3. An ordinary skill in the art would know the compound TEG1 emits green light. PNG media_image6.png 235 635 media_image6.png Greyscale At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham by incorporating a red dopant of Ir(1-piq)3 and a blue dopant of MQAB, as taught by Parham and Reineke. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device, based on the teaching of Reineke. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Reineke (1) comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1, Compound 5p, Ir(1-piq)3, TEG1, and MQAB), and a second electrode, wherein Ir(1-piq)3 is a first compound and MQAB is a second compound. Alternatively, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham by incorporating a red light emitting layer comprising Ir(1-piq)3 and a blue light emitting layer comprising MQAB, as taught by Parham and Reineke. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a white light emitting device, based on the teaching of Reineke. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The modification provides Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Reineke (2) comprising a first electrode, a light emitting layer (a red sublayer comprising Ir(1-piq)3, a green sublayer comprising Compound IC1, Compound 5p, and TEG1 with ratio of 45:45:10, a blue sublayer comprising MQAB), and a second electrode, wherein the Ir(1-piq)3 is a first compound and MQAB is a second compound. It should be noted that a combination of three sublayers (i.e. red, green, and blue light emitting sublayers) read on a light emitting layer of the claim. The Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Reineke (1) (or (2)) reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach the properties of the device including 1) the first compound Ir(1-piq)3 has lower T1 energy than the Compound 5p; and 2) the T1 energy of the second compound MQAB is equal to or higher than the T1 energy of the first compound Ir(1-piq)3. It is reasonable to presume that the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Reineke 1) and 2) each inherently possesses the properties 1) and 2). Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property. Kondakova evidences the T1 energy of Ir(1-piq)3 is 2.12 eV, and the T1 energy of MQAB is 2.29 eV (Table 1). The instant specification provides the T1 energy of the Compound 1 (Table 1 on page 9) being 2.66 eV. The Compound 5p of Parham has similar structure as Compound 1 in that a central phenylene substituted by two phenanthrenyl and one phenyl. The carbazole should affect increasing the T1 energy as evidenced by Montalti below. Thus, the T1 energy of Compound 5p of Parham should be similar to 2.66 eV. Additionally, Montalti evidences the T1 energy of N-phenyl carbazole is 3.05 eV (294 kJ/mol) (page 205), and the T1 energy of phenanthrene is 2.70 eV (260 kJ/mol) (page 195). Because the Compound 5p is made of an N-phenyl carbazole group and phenanthrene groups, the T1 energy of the compound should be in-between or similar to 2.70 eV to 3.05 eV. Therefore, the Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Reineke (1) (or (2)) possesses the properties 1) the first compound Ir(1-piq)3 has lower T1 energy than the Compound 5p; and 2) the T1 energy of the second compound MQAB is equal to or higher than the T1 energy of the first compound Ir(1-piq)3, meeting all the limitations of claims 9-14 and 16-17 . The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once Organic light emitting device of Parham as modified by Reineke (1) and (2) are provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parham et al. (US 20170033296 A1) as applied to claims 9-14 above, further in view of Kotake et al. (US 2020/0044175 A1, hereafter Kotake) . Regarding claim 18 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham reads on all the features of claim 9 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode. Parham does not disclose a display apparatus comprising multiple pixels, wherein at least one of the multiple pixels including the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham and a transistor coupled to the device. Kotake teaches a display apparatus (display device in Fig. 3, [0135]) comprising multiple pixels, wherein at least one of the multiple pixels including an organic light emitting device of Parham and a transistor coupled to the device ([0127]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham by incorporating it into a display apparatus, as taught by Parham and Kotake. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a display device, based on the teaching of Kotake. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of organic light emitting devices in a display apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provide a display apparatus comprising multiple pixels, wherein at least one of the multiple pixels including the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham and a transistor coupled to the device. Regarding claim 19 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham reads on all the features of claim 9 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode. Parham does not disclose a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising an optical unit including multiple lenses; an image pickup device configured to receive light passing through the optical unit; and a display unit including the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham. Kotake teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus (image capture apparatus in [0140]-[0141], Fig. 6) comprising an optical unit including multiple lenses; an image pickup device configured to receive light passing through the optical unit; and a display unit including an organic light emitting device. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham by incorporating it into a photoelectric conversion apparatus, as taught by Parham and Kotake. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a photoelectric conversion apparatus such as a digital camera, based on the teaching of Kotake. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of organic light emitting devices in a photoelectric conversion apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provide a photoelectric conversion apparatus comprising an optical unit including multiple lenses; an image pickup device configured to receive light passing through the optical unit; and a display unit including the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham. Regarding claims 20 and 22 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham reads on all the features of claim 9 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode. Parham does not disclose an electronic apparatus comprising a display unit including the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham; a housing provided with the display unit; and a communication unit being disposed in the housing and communicating with an outside. Kotake teaches an electronic apparatus comprising a display unit including an organic light emitting device; a housing provided with the display unit; and a communication unit being disposed in the housing and communicating with an outside ([0142]-[0143], Fig. 7). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham by incorporating it into an electronic apparatus, as taught by Parham and Kotake. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide an electronic apparatus such as a smart phone, based on the teaching of Kotake. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of organic light emitting devices in an electronic apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provide an electronic apparatus comprising a display unit including the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham; a housing provided with the display unit; and a communication unit being disposed in the housing and communicating with an outside, meeting all the limitations of claim 20 . The electronic apparatus also reads on all the limitation of claim 22 because the electronic apparatus such as a smart phone is carried by a person. When it is carried, it is a moving object. The electronic apparatus also has a housing which reads on the limitation of a body in claim 22, meeting all the limitations of claim 22 . Regarding claim 21 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham reads on all the features of claim 9 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode. Parham does not disclose a lighting apparatus comprising a light source including the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham and a light diffusion unit or an optical film. Kotake teaches an electronic apparatus comprising a display unit including an organic light emitting device; a housing provided with the display unit; and a communication unit being disposed in the housing and communicating with an outside ([0144]-[0146], Fig. 8). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham by incorporating it into a lighting apparatus, as taught by Parham and Kotake. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a lighting apparatus, based on the teaching of Kotake. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of organic light emitting devices in a lighting apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provide a lighting apparatus comprising a light source including the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham and a light diffusion unit or an optical film. Regarding claim 23 , the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham reads on all the features of claim 9 as outlined above. The device comprises a first electrode, a light emitting layer (Compound IC1 45%, Compound 5p 45%, and TEG1 10%), and a second electrode. Parham does not disclose an image forming apparatus comprising a photoconductor; and an exposure light source configured to expose the photoconductor, wherein the exposure light source includes the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham. Kotake teaches an image forming apparatus such as a laser beam printer comprising a photoconductor; and an exposure light source configured to expose the photoconductor, wherein the exposure light source includes an organic light emitting device ([0128]). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham by incorporating it into an image forming apparatus, as taught by Parham and Kotake. The motivation of doing so would have been to provide an image forming apparatus such as a laser beam printer, based on the teaching of Kotake. Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of organic light emitting devices in an image forming apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The modification provide an image forming apparatus comprising a photoconductor; and an exposure light source configured to expose the photoconductor, wherein the exposure light source includes the Modified organic light emitting device of Parham. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST. 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. /SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 2 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 3 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 4 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 5 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 6 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 7 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 8 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 9 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 10 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 11 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 12 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 14 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 15 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 16 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 17 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 18 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 19 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 20 Art Unit: 1786 Application/Control Number: 18/320,093 Page 21 Art Unit: 1786
Prosecution Insights