DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: TANDEM LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE COMPRISING GUANIDINE SKELETON CONTAINING ORGANIC COMPOUND LAYER BETWEEN FIRST LIGHT-EMITTING UNIT AND SECOND LIGHT-EMITTING UNIT
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “measured by CV” should be changed to “measured by cyclic voltammetry (CV)” to clarify “CV”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takabatake et al. (US 2023/0348477 A1; hereinafter “Takabatake”).
Regarding claim 1, referring to Fig. 1B, Takabatake teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (a first electrode 101) (paragraph 122); a second electrode (a second electrode 102) (paragraph 122); and an organic compound layer (an organic compound layer 103) between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic compound layer comprises a first light-emitting unit (a first light-emitting unit 501), a second light-emitting unit (a second light-emitting unit 502), and an intermediate layer (an intermediate layer 116) (paragraph 123), wherein the intermediate layer is between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit (Fig. 1B), wherein the intermediate layer comprises an organic compound (for example, 116 including a cyclic guanidine skeleton) (paragraphs 83-88 and 128).
Takabatake identically teaches each and every limitation the light-emitting device including the organic compound structurally and compositionally identical to the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, the claim does not require any additional feature to distinguish over Takabatake teaching the identical light-emitting device. Accordingly, claimed property/characteristic of the organic compound (i.e., “wherein a peak current of an oxidation current is detected and a peak current of a reduction current is not detected in the case where the organic compound is measured by CV at a scan rate greater than or equal to 1 V/s and less than or equal to 100 V/s”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, referring to Fig. 1B, Takabatake teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (a first electrode 101) (paragraph 122); a second electrode (a second electrode 102) (paragraph 122); and an organic compound layer (an organic compound layer 103) between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic compound layer comprises a first light-emitting unit (a first light-emitting unit 501), a second light-emitting unit (a second light-emitting unit 502), and an intermediate layer (an intermediate layer 116) (paragraph 123), wherein the intermediate layer is between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit (Fig. 1B), wherein the intermediate layer comprises an organic compound (for example, 116 including a cyclic guanidine skeleton) (paragraphs 83-88 and 128).
Takabatake identically teaches each and every limitation the light-emitting device including the organic compound structurally and compositionally identical to the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, the claim does not require any additional feature to distinguish over Takabatake teaching the identical light-emitting device. Accordingly, claimed property/characteristic of the organic compound (i.e., “wherein in the case where the organic compound is measured by CV at a scan rate greater than or equal to 1 V/s and less than or equal to 100 V/s, when a potential is swept in a positive direction from an initial potential, a current of an extremum in a negative direction is detected, and when the potential is swept in a negative direction to the initial potential, a current of an extremum in a positive direction is not detected”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, referring to Fig. 1B, Takabatake teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (a first electrode 101) (paragraph 122); a second electrode (a second electrode 102) (paragraph 122); and an organic compound layer (an organic compound layer 103) between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the organic compound layer comprises a first light-emitting unit (a first light-emitting unit 501), a second light-emitting unit (a second light-emitting unit 502), and an intermediate layer (an intermediate layer 116) (paragraph 123), wherein the intermediate layer is between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit (Fig. 1B), wherein the intermediate layer comprises an organic compound (for example, 116 including a cyclic guanidine skeleton) (paragraphs 83-88 and 128).
Takabatake identically teaches each and every limitation the light-emitting device including the organic compound structurally and compositionally identical to the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, the claim does not require any additional feature to distinguish over Takabatake teaching the identical light-emitting device. Accordingly, claimed property/characteristic of the organic compound (i.e., “wherein in the case where the organic compound is measured by CV at a scan rate greater than or equal to 1 V/s and less than or equal to 100 V/s, when a potential is swept in a positive direction from an initial potential, a current of an extremum that has a current value |Ipa−Ia0| in a negative direction is detected, and when the potential is swept in a negative direction to the initial potential, a current of an extremum that has a current value |Ipc−Ic0| in a positive direction is less than or equal to 1/20 of the current value |Ipa−Ia0|, wherein Ipa represents a current value at an oxidation current peak potential, wherein Ia0 represents a current value at the initial potential when the potential is swept in the positive direction, wherein Ipc represents a current value at a reduction current peak potential, and wherein Ic0 represents a current value at the initial potential when the potential is swept in the negative direction and returned to the initial potential”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 12, Takabatake teaches wherein the first electrode is an anode and the second electrode is a cathode (paragraph 122), wherein the first light-emitting unit is placed on the first electrode side, wherein the second light-emitting unit is placed on the second electrode side, and wherein the organic compound is placed in a region in contact with at least the first light-emitting unit (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claims 5, 9, and 13, Takabatake teaches wherein the organic compound comprises a guanidine skeleton (paragraphs 83-88 and 128).
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 14, Takabatake teaches wherein the organic compound comprises a guanidine skeleton, and wherein a hydrogen atom is released from each of a first carbon bonded to the guanidine skeleton and a second carbon bonded to the first carbon (paragraphs 83-88 and 128).
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 15, Takabatake teaches wherein the organic compound has a ring structure comprising a guanidine skeleton, and wherein a hydrogen atom is released from each of a first carbon bonded to the guanidine skeleton and a second carbon bonded to the first carbon (paragraphs 83-88 and 128).
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Runge et al. (US 2020/0161565 A1; hereinafter “Runge”).
Regarding claim 1, referring to Fig. 3, Runge teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (an anode 120) (paragraph 218); a second electrode (a cathode 190) (paragraph 218); and an organic compound layer (an organic semiconductor layer including at least a first EML 150, a first ETL 160, and a second EML 151) between the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraphs 218-219), wherein the organic compound layer comprises a first light-emitting unit (a first light emitting unit including 130, 140, 145, 150, and 155), a second light-emitting unit (a second light-emitting unit including 141, 146, 151, and 156), and an intermediate layer (the first ETL 160), wherein the intermediate layer is between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit (Fig. 3), wherein the intermediate layer comprises an organic compound (for example, 160 including guanidines) (paragraphs 55-57).
Runge identically teaches each and every limitation the light-emitting device including the organic compound structurally and compositionally identical to the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, the claim does not require any additional feature to distinguish over Runge teaching the identical light-emitting device. Accordingly, claimed property/characteristic of the organic compound (i.e., “wherein a peak current of an oxidation current is detected and a peak current of a reduction current is not detected in the case where the organic compound is measured by CV at a scan rate greater than or equal to 1 V/s and less than or equal to 100 V/s”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, referring to Fig. 3, Runge teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (an anode 120) (paragraph 218); a second electrode (a cathode 190) (paragraph 218); and an organic compound layer (an organic semiconductor layer including at least a first EML 150, a first ETL 160, and a second EML 151) between the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraphs 218-219), wherein the organic compound layer comprises a first light-emitting unit (a first light emitting unit including 130, 140, 145, 150, and 155), a second light-emitting unit (a second light-emitting unit including 141, 146, 151, and 156), and an intermediate layer (the first ETL 160), wherein the intermediate layer is between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit (Fig. 3), wherein the intermediate layer comprises an organic compound (for example, 160 including guanidines) (paragraphs 55-57).
Runge identically teaches each and every limitation the light-emitting device including the organic compound structurally and compositionally identical to the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, the claim does not require any additional feature to distinguish over Runge teaching the identical light-emitting device. Accordingly, claimed property/characteristic of the organic compound (i.e., “wherein in the case where the organic compound is measured by CV at a scan rate greater than or equal to 1 V/s and less than or equal to 100 V/s, when a potential is swept in a positive direction from an initial potential, a current of an extremum in a negative direction is detected, and when the potential is swept in a negative direction to the initial potential, a current of an extremum in a positive direction is not detected”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, referring to Fig. 3, Runge teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a first electrode (an anode 120) (paragraph 218); a second electrode (a cathode 190) (paragraph 218); and an organic compound layer (an organic semiconductor layer including at least a first EML 150, a first ETL 160, and a second EML 151) between the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraphs 218-219), wherein the organic compound layer comprises a first light-emitting unit (a first light emitting unit including 130, 140, 145, 150, and 155), a second light-emitting unit (a second light-emitting unit including 141, 146, 151, and 156), and an intermediate layer (the first ETL 160), wherein the intermediate layer is between the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit (Fig. 3), wherein the intermediate layer comprises an organic compound (for example, 160 including guanidines) (paragraphs 55-57).
Runge identically teaches each and every limitation the light-emitting device including the organic compound structurally and compositionally identical to the claim as discussed above. Furthermore, the claim does not require any additional feature to distinguish over Runge teaching the identical light-emitting device. Accordingly, claimed property/characteristic of the organic compound (i.e., “wherein in the case where the organic compound is measured by CV at a scan rate greater than or equal to 1 V/s and less than or equal to 100 V/s, when a potential is swept in a positive direction from an initial potential, a current of an extremum that has a current value |Ipa−Ia0| in a negative direction is detected, and when the potential is swept in a negative direction to the initial potential, a current of an extremum that has a current value |Ipc−Ic0| in a positive direction is less than or equal to 1/20 of the current value |Ipa−Ia0|, wherein Ipa represents a current value at an oxidation current peak potential, wherein Ia0 represents a current value at the initial potential when the potential is swept in the positive direction, wherein Ipc represents a current value at a reduction current peak potential, and wherein Ic0 represents a current value at the initial potential when the potential is swept in the negative direction and returned to the initial potential”) is presumed to be inherent: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and MPEP 2112.01. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 12, Runge teaches wherein the first electrode is an anode and the second electrode is a cathode (paragraph 218), wherein the first light-emitting unit is placed on the first electrode side, wherein the second light-emitting unit is placed on the second electrode side, and wherein the organic compound is placed in a region in contact with at least the first light-emitting unit (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 5, 9, and 13, Runge teaches wherein the organic compound comprises a guanidine skeleton (paragraphs 55-57).
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 14, Runge teaches wherein the organic compound comprises a guanidine skeleton, and wherein a hydrogen atom is released from each of a first carbon bonded to the guanidine skeleton and a second carbon bonded to the first carbon (paragraphs 55-57).
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 15, Runge teaches wherein the organic compound has a ring structure comprising a guanidine skeleton, and wherein a hydrogen atom is released from each of a first carbon bonded to the guanidine skeleton and a second carbon bonded to the first carbon (paragraphs 55-57).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights