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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(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.
Claims 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2020/0395560 A1, hereafter Bae).
Regarding claims 11-14 and 17-18, Bae discloses an organometallic compound of Formula 1 used for a light emitting device ([0006]-[0042]) and exemplifies Compound 173 ([0199]).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound 173 of Bae has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-14 and 18.
With respect to claim 17, the Compound 173 of Bae reads on all the limitation of claim 17, because in the Compound 173 of Bae, c2 is 5; T2 are each independently hydrogen or alkyl; c3 is 2; and T3 is each alkyl, which satisfied the condition i) of claim 17.
Claims 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2024/0043461 A1, hereafter Chen).
Regarding claims 11-15 and 17-19, Chen discloses an organometallic compound of Formula I used for a light emitting device ([0006]-[0022]) and exemplifies compounds ([0178], the second compound on page 83, hereafter Compound p83-2; and the third compound on page 81, hereafter Compo81-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
453
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Compound p83-2 of Chen has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19.
The Compound p81-3 of Chen has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 of claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-15, and 17-18.
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.
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 1-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2020/0395560 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7 and 9, Bae discloses an organometallic compound of Formula 1 used for a light emitting device ([0006]-[0042]) and exemplifies Compound 173 ([0199]).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bae does not disclose a specific light emit device comprising the Compound 173 of Bae; however, Bae does teach the compound can be used for a light emitting device ([0041]).
Bae teaches the structure of a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (compound of Bae as a dopant, CBP as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode ([0383]-[0385]).
PNG
media_image3.png
184
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The CBP has identical structure as Applicant’s third compound comprising Formula 3.
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 173 of Bae by incorporating it as the emission layer dopant of a light emitting device, as taught by Bae.
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 emission layer dopants 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 light emitting device of Bae comprising a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound 173 of Bae as a dopant, CBP as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition; the hole injection layer, the emission layer, the electron injection layer are an interlayer; the light emitting device is an electronic device; the light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 7 and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Bae reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Bae emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10).
Furthermore, Bae teaches that the compound of Bae emits blue light ([0200]) and the OLED comprising the compound having similar structure (Examples 1-4 in Table 2) emits blue light.
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Bae emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Bae 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2020/0395560 A1) as applied claims 1-5, 7, and 9 above further in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0350507 A1, hereafter Sun).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9, the Modified light emitting device of Bae reads on all the features of claims 1-2 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound 173 of Bae as a dopant, CBP as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition.
The device does not comprise a second host compound; however, Bae does teach that the host of the light emitting device can be any host ([0211]).
Sun discloses a light emitting device comprising an emission layer containing first, second, and third host compounds ([0007]-[0018]).
Sun exemplifies Compounds HT-01, ET-1-02, and ET-2-02 as the first, second, and third compounds (Example 1 and compare with Comparative Example 12 in Table 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
279
668
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The compounds HT-01 and ET-2-02 of Sun each read on the first and the second compound of the instant application.
Sun teaches that the Compound 173 of Bae can be the phosphorescent dopant of the device of Sun (see limitation of Formula 4 in [0152]-[0170]; and see the examples including at least Compound BD7 in [0222] which has identical core structure as the compound of Bae).
Sun teaches the light emitting device of Sun provides increased energy transfer efficiency from exciplex hosts to a dopant, reduced deterioration of the dopant, and excellent lifespan improvement ([0146]).
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 light emitting device of Bae by substituting the host with the Compounds HT-01, ET-1-02, and ET-2-02 of Sun, as taught by Bae and Sun.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide increased energy transfer efficiency from exciplex hosts to a dopant, reduced deterioration of the dopant, and excellent lifespan improvement, based on the teaching of Sun.
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 the Light emitting device of Bae as modified by Sun comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound 173 of Bae as a dopant, HT-01 as a first compound (host), ET-2-02 as a second compound (host), and ET-1-01), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition; the hole injection layer, the emission layer, the electron injection layer are an interlayer; the light emitting device is an electronic device; the light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
With respect to claim 5, the Compound 173 of Bae is the only emitting dopant of the device, and the compound inherently possesses blue light emitting property as outlined above, thus, the device emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2020/0395560 A1) as applied claims 1-5, 7, and 9 above further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue).
Regarding claims 7-10, the Modified light emitting device of Bae reads on all the features of claims 1-2 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a hole injection layer, an emission layer (Compound 173 of Bae as a dopant, CBP as a host), an electron injection layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition.
Bae does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Modified light emitting device of Bae and a touch screen layer.
Inoue discloses a laptop computer (Fig. 7B2 and [0174]) comprising a display portion containing a touch screen layer (7210).
Inoue teaches that the display portion (7203 in Fig. 7B2) of the electronic apparatus comprises a light emitting device (618 in Fig. 2B, [0138]).
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 light emitting device of Bae by incorporating it into the display portion of a laptop computer, as taught by Bae and Inoue.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a laptop computer comprising an OLED display, based on the teaching of Inoue.
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 light emitting devices in a laptop computer 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 a laptop computer comprising a touch screen layer and the Modified light emitting device of Bae, wherein the laptop computer is an electronic device and an electronic apparatus.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 2020/0395560 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 15, Bae discloses an organometallic compound of Formula 1 used for a light emitting device ([0006]-[0042]) and exemplifies Compound 173 ([0199]).
PNG
media_image5.png
351
705
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Compound 173 of Bae does not comprise any deuterium atom; however, Bae does teach that the substituent at the position R20 can be deuterium ([0025]).
Kim discloses a deuterated organometallic compound used for a light emitting device ([0001]).
Kim teaches that the deuteration provides lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy level, decreased Van der Waals force, prevention of proton efficiency decrease due to intermolecular collision by vibration, improved efficiency, and improved thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
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 173 of Bae by substituting the hydrogen at the position corresponding to R20 with deuterium, as taught by Bae and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy level, decreased Van der Waals force, prevention of proton efficiency decrease due to intermolecular collision by vibration, improved efficiency, and improved thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
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 hydrogen with deuterium at the position corresponding to R20 of Formula 1-1 of Bae 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 Compound of Bae as modified by Kim having identical structure as the Compound 173 of Bae except the hydrogen at the position corresponding to R20 of Formula 1-1 of Bae is substituted by deuterium.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2024/0043461 A1, hereafter Chen).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, and 9, Chen discloses an organometallic compound of Formula I used for a light emitting device ([0006]-[0022]) and exemplifies a compound ([0178], the second compound on page 83, hereafter Compound p83-2). The Compounds p83-2 and p81-3 of Chen each has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula 1 as outlined above.
Chen does not disclose a specific light emit device comprising the Compounds p83-2 (or p81-3) of Chen); however, Chen does teach the compound can be used as the emitter of a light emitting device ([002]).
Chen teaches the structure of a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode ([0188], [0218], Fig. 1).
Chen teaches that the emission layer can include a host ([0247]) and carbazole compound and CBP as a host ([0251], [0253]).
PNG
media_image3.png
184
349
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The CBP has identical structure as Applicant’s third compound comprising Formula 3.
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 Compounds p83-2 (or p81-3) of Chen by incorporating it as the emission layer dopant with a carbazole compound such as CBP as a host in a light emitting device, as taught by Chen.
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 emission layer dopants and hosts 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 light emitting device of Chen comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compounds p83-2 (or p81-3) of Chen) as a dopant, CBP as a host), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition; the emission layer is an interlayer; the light emitting device is an electronic device; the light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 7 and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Chen reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Chen emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10). In each of the devices, the light emitting dopant compound (i.e. BD01 to BD119) has identical core structure (i.e. metal atom and the rings of the tetradentate ligand directly coordinating the metal) as the Compounds p83-2 and p81-3 of Chen.
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Chen emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Chen 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.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 15-20, Chen discloses an organometallic compound of Formula I used for a light emitting device ([0006]-[0022]) and exemplifies a compound ([0178], the second compound on page 83, hereafter Compound p83-2).
PNG
media_image6.png
436
565
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In the Compound p83-2 of Chen, the substituent group at the position corresponding to
PNG
media_image7.png
114
101
media_image7.png
Greyscale
of Formula I of Chen has similar structure as Applicant’s Formula AS1,
PNG
media_image8.png
125
318
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. The only difference is that the substitution position of the tetraphenylsilyl group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed circle in the figure above) is substituted to the para position of the phenyl group containing X1 to X4, and the deuterated phenyl group (i.e. the part enclosed by a dashed box in the figure above) is substituted to the ortho position of the phenyl group containing X1 to X4, while Applicant’s Formula AS1 requires the tetraphenylsilyl group to be substituted to the ortho position and the deuterated phenyl group to be substituted to the para position (i.e. Formula AS1 requires Compound p83-2 to switch the substitution positions of the tetraphenylsilyl and the deuterated phenyl groups).
However, Chen does teach R1 can be a deuterated aryl group ([0016], [0053], [0056]-[0057]), and the RE can be a tetraphenylsilyl group ([0015]).
PNG
media_image9.png
449
604
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Chen exemplifies a compound (see the first compound on page 81, hereafter Compound p81-1), wherein a deuterated phenyl is substituted to the para position of the phenyl group containing X1 to X4. Chen exemplifies a compound (see the second compound on page 84, hereafter Compound p84-2), wherein a tetraphenylsilyl group is substituted to the ortho position of the phenyl group containing X1 to X4.
Furthermore, Chen exemplifies a specific embodiment, ligand LA’1-(R6)(R94)(R6)(R1) having structure of
PNG
media_image10.png
233
207
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ri and Rk are each R6
PNG
media_image11.png
138
129
media_image11.png
Greyscale
, Rj is R94
PNG
media_image12.png
170
169
media_image12.png
Greyscale
, Rl is R1
PNG
media_image13.png
47
71
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0174]-[0177]).
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 p83-2 of Chen by switching the substitution positions of the tetraphenylsilyl group with the deuterated phenyl group (or in other word, by substituting the left bidentate ligand comprising the rings A and B and the substituent comprising the X1 to X4, R1, and RE with the ligand LA’1-(R6)(R94)(R6)(R1)), as taught by Chen.
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 the exemplified substituent groups at the positions R1 and RE would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). The substitution of the exemplified left bidentate ligands comprising the X1 to X4, R1, and RE in the Formula I of Chen would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, the Compound p83-2 of Chen is a position isomer with a similar compound in which the tetraphenylsilyl group is substituted to the ortho position and the deuterated phenyl group is substituted to the para position of the ring comprising X1 to X4 of the Formula I of Chen.
With respect to position isomers, the examiner points to the MPEP which states: A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious). See MPEP 2144.09 I and 2144.09 II.
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Compound p83-2 of Chen shown above such that the tetraphenylsilyl group is substituted to the ortho position and the deuterated phenyl group is substituted to the para position of the ring comprising X1 to X4 of the Formula I of Chen. A compound in which the tetraphenylsilyl group is substituted to the ortho position and the deuterated phenyl group is substituted to the para position of the ring comprising X1 to X4 of the Formula I of Chen would represent a position isomer of the Compound p83-2 of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the position isomers having each respective structure would act in similar manner.
PNG
media_image14.png
342
605
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Modified compound of Chen, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-13 and 15-20.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2024/0043461 A1) as applied claims 1-5, 7, and 9 above further in view of Sun et al. (US 2020/0350507 A1).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 9, the Modified light emitting device of Chen reads on all the features of claims 1-2 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compounds p83-2 (or p81-3) of Chen) as a dopant, CBP as a host), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition.
The device does not comprise a second host compound; however, Chen does teach that a carbazole compound and a triazine compound can be used as a host ([0192]).
Sun discloses a light emitting device comprising an emission layer containing first, second, and third host compounds ([0007]-[0018]).
Sun exemplifies Compounds HT-01, ET-1-02, and ET-2-02 as the first, second, and third compounds (Example 1 and compare with Comparative Example 12 in Table 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
279
668
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The compounds HT-01 and ET-2-02 of Sun each read on the first and the second compound of the instant application.
Sun teaches that the Compounds p83-2 (or p81-3) of Chen can be the phosphorescent dopant of the device of Sun (see limitation of Formula 4 in [0152]-[0170]; and see the examples including at least Compound BD7 in [0222] which has identical core structure as the compound of Chen).
Sun teaches the light emitting device of Sun provides increased energy transfer efficiency from exciplex hosts to a dopant, reduced deterioration of the dopant, and excellent lifespan improvement ([0146]).
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 light emitting device of Chen by substituting the host with the Compounds HT-01, ET-1-02, and ET-2-02 of Sun, as taught by Chen and Sun.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide increased energy transfer efficiency from exciplex hosts to a dopant, reduced deterioration of the dopant, and excellent lifespan improvement, based on the teaching of Sun.
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 the Light emitting device of Chen as modified by Sun comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compounds p83-2 (or p81-3) of Chen as a dopant, HT-01 as a first compound (host), ET-2-02 as a second compound (host), and ET-1-01), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition; the emission layer is an interlayer; the light emitting device is an electronic device; the light emitting device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
With respect to claim 5, the Compounds p83-2 (or p81-3) of Chen is the only emitting dopant of the device, and the compound inherently possesses blue light emitting property as outlined above, thus, the device emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2024/0043461 A1) as applied claims 1-5, 7, and 9 above further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1, hereafter Inoue).
Regarding claims 7-10, the Modified light emitting device of Chen reads on all the features of claims 1-2 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (Compounds p83-2 (or p81-3) of Chen) as a dopant, CBP as a host), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition.
Chen does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Modified light emitting device of Chen and a touch screen layer; however, Chen does teach that the light emitting device can be incorporated in a laptop computer ([0212]-[0213]).
Inoue discloses a laptop computer (Fig. 7B2 and [0174]) comprising a display portion containing a touch screen layer (7210).
Inoue teaches that the display portion (7203 in Fig. 7B2) of the electronic apparatus comprises a light emitting device (618 in Fig. 2B, [0138]).
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 light emitting device of Chen by incorporating it into the display portion of a laptop computer, as taught by Chen and Inoue.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a laptop computer comprising an OLED display, based on the teaching of Inoue.
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 light emitting devices in a laptop computer 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 a laptop computer comprising a touch screen layer and the Modified light emitting device of Chen, wherein the laptop computer is an electronic device and an electronic apparatus.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9 and 11, of US Patent 12,677,587 B1 (hereafter Patent ‘587). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20, Patent ‘587 discloses a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (a hole transporting host, an electron transporting host, and an organometallic compound of Formula 1 as a dopant), and a second electrode (claim 8).
Patent ‘587 discloses Compound 97 as the compound of Formula 1 (claim 11).
PNG
media_image15.png
263
235
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The Compound 97 of Patent ‘587 has identical structure as Formula 1 of the instant claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-20.
Patent ‘587 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 97 of Patent ‘587; however, Patent ‘587 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (a hole transporting host, an electron transporting host, and an organometallic compound of Formula 1 as a dopant), and a second electrode (claim 8). Patent ‘587 teaches the electron transporting host can be pi electron deficient nitrogen containing C6 heterocyclic group (Formula ET-1 in claim 9).
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 97 of Patent ‘587 by incorporating it into the emission layer as a dopant, as taught by Patent ‘587.
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 the dopant compound of Formula 1 in the light emitting device 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 light emitting device of Patent ‘587 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (a hole transporting host, an pi electron deficient nitrogen containing heterocycle as an electron transporting host, and Compound 97 as a dopant), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, the device is an electronic device; the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Patent ‘587 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Patent ‘587 emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10).
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Patent ‘587 emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Patent ‘587 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 9-10, and 20 of copending Application No. 17/984,384 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘384). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 11-19, Application ‘384 discloses an organometallic compound of Formula 1 (claim 10) and exemplifies Compound 100 (claim 20).
PNG
media_image16.png
228
248
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The Compound 100 of Application ‘384 has identical structure as Formula 1 of the instant claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-19.
Application ‘384 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 100 of Application ‘384; however, Application ‘384 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound of Application ‘384 (claim 3). Application ‘384 teaches that the emission layer can further comprises a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing C6 heterocyclic group (Formula 1A in claim 3).
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 100 of Application ‘384 by incorporating it into the emission layer with a compound comprising a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing C6 heterocyclic group, as taught by Application ‘384.
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 the compounds of Formula 1 in the light emitting device 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 light emitting device of Application ‘384 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (a compound comprising a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing heterocycle, and Compound 100), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, the device is an electronic device; the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Application ‘384 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Application ‘384 emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10).
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘384 emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Application ‘384 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 11007). 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.
Regarding claim 8, the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘384 reads on all the features of claim 2 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a compound comprising a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing heterocycle, and Compound 100), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition.
Application ‘384 does not disclose an electronic device comprising the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘384 and a color filter; however, Application ‘384 does teach an electronic device comprising the light emitting device of Application ‘384 and a color filter (claim 9).
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 light emitting device of Application ‘384 by incorporating it into an electronic device with a color filter, as taught by Application ‘384.
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 an electronic device comprising the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘384 and a color filter.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 6-8, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/095,604 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘604). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20, Application ‘604 discloses an organometallic compound of Formula 1 (claim 8) and exemplifies Compound 11 (claim 19).
PNG
media_image17.png
231
239
media_image17.png
Greyscale
The Compound 11 of Application ‘604 has identical structure as Formula 1 of the instant claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-20.
Application ‘604 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 11 of Application ‘604; however, Application ‘604 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound of Application ‘604 and a second compound comprising triazine (claim 4).
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 11 of Application ‘604 by incorporating it into the emission layer with a compound comprising triazine, as taught by Application ‘604.
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 the compounds of Formula 1 in the light emitting device 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 light emitting device of Application ‘604 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (a compound comprising triazine, and Compound 11 of Application ‘604), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, the device is an electronic device; the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Application ‘604 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Application ‘604 emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10).
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘604 emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Application ‘604 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 11007). 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘604 reads on all the features of claim 2 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, an emission layer (a compound comprising triazine, and Compound 11), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition.
Application ‘604 does not disclose an electronic device comprising the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘604 and a color filter; however, Application ‘604 does teach an electronic device comprising the light emitting device of Application ‘604 and a color filter (claim 6). Application ‘604 teaches an electronic device comprising the light emitting device can be a flat panel display (claim 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 light emitting device of Application ‘604 by incorporating it into a flat panel display with a color filter, as taught by Application ‘604.
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 a flat panel display comprising the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘604 and a color filter.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/311,568 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘568). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20, Application ‘568 discloses an organometallic compound P38 (claim 17).
PNG
media_image18.png
214
193
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The Compound P38 of Application ‘568 has identical structure as Formula 1 of the instant claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-20.
Application ‘568 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound P38 of Application ‘568; however, Application ‘568 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound of Application ‘568 and a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound of Formula 2 (claim 13).
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 P38 of Application ‘568 by incorporating it into the emission layer with a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound, as taught by Application ‘568.
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 Modified light emitting device of Application ‘568 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound, and Compound P38 of Application ‘568), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, the device is an electronic device; the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Application ‘568 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Application ‘568 emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10).
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘568 emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Application ‘568 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 11007). 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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/311,572 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘572). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20, Application ‘572 discloses an organometallic compound P38 (claim 17).
PNG
media_image18.png
214
193
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The Compound P38 of Application ‘572 has identical structure as Formula 1 of the instant claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-20.
Application ‘572 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound P38 of Application ‘572; however, Application ‘572 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound of Application ‘572 and a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound of Formula 2 (claim 13).
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 P38 of Application ‘572 by incorporating it into the emission layer with a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound, as taught by Application ‘572.
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 Modified light emitting device of Application ‘572 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound, and Compound P38 of Application ‘572), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, the device is an electronic device; the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Application ‘572 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Application ‘572 emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10).
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘572 emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Application ‘572 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 11007). 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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/311,575 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘575). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20, Application ‘575 discloses an organometallic compound P38 (claim 18).
PNG
media_image18.png
214
193
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The Compound P38 of Application ‘575 has identical structure as Formula 1 of the instant claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-20.
Application ‘575 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound P38 of Application ‘575; however, Application ‘575 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound of Application ‘575 and a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound of Formula 2 (claim 14).
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 P38 of Application ‘575 by incorporating it into the emission layer with a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound, as taught by Application ‘575.
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 Modified light emitting device of Application ‘575 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound, and Compound P38 of Application ‘575), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, the device is an electronic device; the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Application ‘575 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Application ‘575 emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10).
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘575 emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Application ‘575 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 11007). 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.
Claims 2, 7, 9, and 11-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/321,910 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘910). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 9, and 11-19, Application ‘910 discloses an organometallic compound 121 (claim 20).
PNG
media_image19.png
234
308
media_image19.png
Greyscale
The Compound 121 of Application ‘910 has identical structure as Formula 1 of the instant claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-19.
Application ‘910 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 121 of Application ‘910; however, Application ‘910 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound of Application ‘910 (claim 5).
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 121 of Application ‘910 by incorporating it into the emission layer, as taught by Application ‘910.
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 Modified light emitting device of Application ‘910 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (Compound 121 of Application ‘910), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, the device is an electronic device; the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 2, 7, and 9.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/328,151 (reference application, hereafter Application ‘151). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed at the same aspects of the same invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-19, Application ‘151 discloses an organometallic compound 26 (claim 20).
PNG
media_image20.png
234
289
media_image20.png
Greyscale
The Compound 26 of Application ‘151 has identical structure as Formula 1 of the instant claim 11, meeting all the limitations of claims 11-14 and 16-19.
Application ‘151 does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising the Compound 26 of Application ‘151; however, Application ‘151 does teach a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer comprises the organometallic compound of Application ‘151 and a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound of Formula 2 (claim 4). Application ‘151 teaches the second compound can comprise at least one deuterium, at least one silicon, or a combination thereof (claim 6).
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 26 of Application ‘151 by incorporating it into the emission layer with a pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound, as taught by Application ‘151.
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 Modified light emitting device of Application ‘151 comprising a first electrode, an emission layer (pi electron deficient nitrogen containing compound, and Compound 26 of Application ‘151), and a second electrode, wherein the emission layer materials are a composition, the device is an electronic device; the device is an electronic apparatus, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9.
The Modified light emitting device of Application ‘151 reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the device emits blue light.
It is reasonable to presume that Modified light emitting device of Application ‘151 emits blue light.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states that the compound of Applicant’s Formula 1 emits blue light ([00421]) and the exemplary devices each comprising the compound having similar structure emits blue light (Examples 1-18 in Table 10).
Therefore, the Modified light emitting device of Application ‘151 emits blue light, meeting all the limitations of claim 5.
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 light emitting device of Application ‘151 is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 11007). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights