DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The present application is a divisional of applications 15/107,456 and 17/185,901, both abandoned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
4. Claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1, refers to specific substituents R1, R2 and R3. However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for said limitations since claim 1 is silent with respect to R1, R2 and R3.
Claims 2-24 refer to the process for manufacturing a semiconducting material …. Since there are no prepositions “the” or “said” in front of “semiconducting material”, it is not clear if “semiconducting material” of claims 2-24 is the same or different from that of claim 1.
Further, claim 1 recites “at least one metallic element” in line 3, but then recites “the metallic element” in lines 8, 9, 18. The recitation of ‘the metallic element” is indefinite without the “at least one” preceding the limitation. Lines 8 and 9 of claim 1 should be amended to recite “the at least one metallic element” in order to provide the proper antecedent basis. The “at least one” language is also missing from “the electron transport matrix” in lines 12 and 17. Further, the limitations “the electrically doped semiconducting material” in lines 9 and 10-11 lack antecedent basis.
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.
5. Claims 1-12, 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of Noto et al (US 2012/0261651).
6. Oyamada et al discloses a method for making material for a light emitting device having excellent electron transporting property ([0012]), the material comprising:
a) a phosphine oxide compounds of formula (1) below and
b) 3-70%wt of an alkaline earth metal (Abstract, [0046]) including magnesium, calcium, strontium, and barium ([0044]):
PNG
media_image1.png
105
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R1 and R2 maybe the same or different and comprise an alkyl group, a cycloalkyl group, an aryl group or heteroaryl group, or condensed multi-ring aryl group; Ar1 is an aryl or heteroaryl group or condensed multi-ring aryl group (claim 2, [0015]-[33], also as to instant claims 2-3), and
wherein the method comprises co-evaporation the phosphine oxide compound and the alkali earth metal ([0047]) and further vapor deposition of said mixture on a light emitting material as an electron transport material ([0075]), i.e. co-deposition.
Further, since the method includes the step of co-evaporation of the phosphine oxide compound and the metal dopant, and further vapor deposition of said mixture onto the light emitting layer, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to co-deposit said co-evaporated mixture on the light emitting material as well.
7. The phosphine oxide compounds include the following structures [1]-[67], specifically:
PNG
media_image2.png
354
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
158
378
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
290
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
8. Thus, the following structures [1], [3] and [14] include substituents comprising more than 10 localized electrons, further separated from the phosphine oxide group by a phenylene spacer. The compounds [49] and [50] comprise substituents comprising additional phosphine oxide groups (as to instant claims 3-8).
9. Further, though Oyamada et al does not explicitly recite a reduction potential of the phosphine compounds of formula (1) above and specifically of compounds [1]-[67], since the phosphine oxide compounds of formula (I) of Oyamada et al are the same as those claimed in instant invention, i.e. corresponding to Formula (I) of instant claims 2-3, therefore, the compounds of formula (1) of Oyamada et al will intrinsically and necessarily comprise, or would be reasonably expected to comprise the reduction potential as claimed in instant invention as well, i.e. lower than a reduction potential of tris(2-benzo[d]thiazol-2-yl)phenoxyaluminum, and higher than a reduction potential of N2,N2,N2',N2',N7,N7,N7',N7'-octaphenyl-9,9'-spirobi[fluorene]-2,2',7,7'- tetraamine; and further the reduction potential of the matrix compound lower than a reduction potential of 2,9-di([ 1, 1'-biphenyl]-4-yl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, or lower than a reduction potential of 2,4,7,9-tetraphenyl- 1,10-phenanthroline, or lower than a reduction potential of 9, 10-di(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-phenylanthracene, or lower than a reduction potential of 2,9-bis(2-methoxyphenyl)-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline, or lower than a reduction potential of 9,9'-spirobi[fluorene]-2,7-diylbis(diphenylphosphine oxide), or higher than a reduction potential of triphenylene, or higher than a reduction potential of N4,N4'-di(naphthalen- 1 -yl)-N4,N4'-diphenyl-[ 1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, or higher than a reduction potential of [4,4'-di(9H-carbazol-9-yl)-1, 1'-biphenyl, or higher than a reduction potential of bis(4-(9H-carbazol-9-yl)phenyl)(phenyl)phosphine oxide, or higher than a reduction potential of 3-([1,1'-biphenyl]-4-yl)-5-(4-(tert-butyl)phenyl )-4-phenyl-4H-1.2,4-triazole, or higher than a reduction potential of pyrene, as well (as to instant claims 1, 14-24). 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, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
10. Further, though Oyamada et al does not explicitly such as by the way of a specific example recite the phosphine compounds wherein each of the substituents R1 to R3 comprises phosphine oxide group, in view of the teachings of Oyamada et al that substituents R1 and R2 may be the same and along with Ar1 being aryl or heteroaryl, and further specifically exemplified structures showing the substituents comprising phosphine oxide groups ([49]-[51]), it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the substituents R1, R2 and Ar1 in the formula (1) of Oyamada et al each having the phosphine oxide groups as well. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
11. Though Oyamada et al discloses the metal dopant being alkaline earth metals, Oyamada et al does not teach the metal being ytterbium (Yb).
12. However, Noto et al discloses an electroluminescent element comprising an electron transport layer comprising i) a phosphine oxide host material having the following formula ([0021]-[0024):
PNG
media_image5.png
486
445
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and ii) a dopant comprising metals, such as alkaline earth and further transition metals containing rare earth metals, specifically Yb ([0091]); and further phosphorus-containing compounds including the phosphine oxide derivatives which are the same as those used as the host materials and having the formula represented above by formula (1) ([0091]); and further metal complexes of 8-quinolinol ([0090]).
13. Though Noto et al does not explicitly recite the structure of formula (II) as claimed in instant invention, i.e. phosphine oxide/Li compound, used as the dopant, since Noto et al explicitly teaches both Li compounds/complexes and triaryl phosphine oxide used as the dopant material, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine, or obvious to try to combine, Li metal and triaryl phosphine oxide and form the Li/triphenylphosphine oxide compound which would include both Li ion and triarylphosphine oxide-dopant materials to further improve emissive properties of the EL device as well (as to instant claims 9-12). Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
14. Noto et al further exemplifies the specific phosphine oxide compounds as host materials including ([0025], also as to instant claim 3):
PNG
media_image6.png
379
412
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Formula (IV)
PNG
media_image7.png
299
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Formula (V)
PNG
media_image8.png
354
312
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Formula (VI)
PNG
media_image9.png
205
468
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Formula VII) (as to instant claims 2-8).
15. It is noted that the compound of formula (VI) of Noto et al corresponds to the inventive compound E2 of instant invention, having a reduction potential of -2.69V (p. 17, [0082] of instant specification).
16. Thus, the compounds disclosed in Noto et al are having the same or similar structures as those cited in instant specification and the specifically exemplified compounds are having the reduction potential within the range of “lower than”/”higher than” as claimed in instant invention, therefore, a broad range of phosphine oxide compounds of Noto et al will intrinsically and necessarily have, or would be reasonably expected to have the reduction potential of the phosphine oxide host material within the ranges of “lower than”/”higher than” as claimed in instant invention, as well. 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, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
17. Since not only alkaline earth metals but further rare earth metals including Yb, and Li/triphenylphosphine oxide compound and Mg or Li complexes with 8-quinolinol, are used as dopants in phosphine oxide-containing matrix used for electron transport layers, as taught by Noto et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Noto et al and Oyamada et al, and to include, or obvious to try to include, at least partially, Yb, Li/triphenylphosphine oxide compound and Mg or Li complexes with 8-quinolinol of Noto et al as the dopants (as to instant claims 1, 9-12), and further use the phosphine oxide compounds such as of Formula (VI) above as the host material (as to instant claims 1, 14-24) in the method for forming EL device of Oyamada et al to further improve the emissive properties of the EL device of Oyamada et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
18. All ranges in the process of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
19. Claim(s) 1, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of
Noto et al (US 2012/0261651) and Dorok et al (WO 2013/079678).
20. The discussion with respect to Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of Noto et al (US 2012/0261651) set forth in paragraphs 5-18 above, is incorporated here by reference.
21. Though Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al do not explicitly recite the use of Li/phosphine oxide compound of formula (II) as claimed in instant invention, however,
Dorok et al discloses OLED device comprising an organic layer comprising the compound of formula (VIII) below (Abstract; p. 4, lines 22-29):
PNG
media_image10.png
220
409
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Formula (VIII)
The compound of Formula (VIII) above provides improved performance to electronic devices, such as reduced operative voltage, longer life time and higher power efficiency (col. 4, lines 18-22).
22. Since the compound of formula (VIII) above is used as additive in EL devices to provide reduced operative voltage, longer life time and higher power efficiency, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to include, at least partially, or would be reasonable to try to include, the compound of formula (VIII) above into the EL device of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al so to further provide longer life time and higher power efficiency to EL device of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al as well, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
23. Claim(s) 1-12, 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of
Noto et al (US 2012/0261651), in further view of Kroeber et al (WO 2013/026515) and Satou et al (US 2008/0241518).
It is noted that while the rejection is made over WO 2013/026515 for date purposes, in order to elucidate the examiner's position the corresponding US equivalent viz. US 9,735,385 is relied upon. All citations to paragraph numbers, etc., below refer to US 9,735,385.
24. The discussion with respect to Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of Noto et al (US 2012/0261651) set forth in paragraphs 5-18 above, is incorporated here by reference.
25. Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al do not recite further phosphine oxide compounds that are used as matrix in electron transport layer.
26. However, Kroeber et al discloses an electroluminescent device comprising at least one electron transport layer, wherein the electron transport layer comprises an electron conducting matrix having the formula (I) below (col. 55, line 50-col. 56, line 65):
PNG
media_image11.png
92
102
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Wherein each of Ar is an aromatic ring system having 6-40 aromatic ring atoms, specifically phenyl, naphthyl, which may be substituted with alkyl or an aromatic ring system having 6-24 carbon atoms, or P(=O)(Ar2)2, i.e. the substituents comprising phosphine oxide groups (col. 57, lines 1-60, as to instant claims 2-8).
27. The specifically presented compound is of formulas (II) and (III) below (col. 59, lines 10-30, as to instant claims 1-4, 8, 14-24):
PNG
media_image12.png
452
381
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Wherein Z is CR1; R1 is H; p is 0 or 1; Ar is phenyl substituted with P(=O)(Ar2)2, i.e. the substituents comprising phosphine oxide groups (col. 60, lines 15-34; col. 57, line 40-42).
28. Thus, the compound of Formula (II) corresponds to the inventive compound E2 having reduction potential of -2.69V; the compound of Formula (III) above corresponds to the Example B6 of instant invention and is having reduction potential of -2.41V (p. 16, 17 of instant specification). Thus, the compounds disclosed in Kroeber et al are having the same or similar structures as those cited in instant specification and the specifically exemplified compounds are having the reduction potential within the range of “lower than”/”higher than” as claimed and disclosed in instant invention, therefore, a broad range of phosphine oxide compounds of Kroeber et al will intrinsically and necessarily have, or would be reasonably expected to have the reduction potential within the ranges of “lower than”/”higher than” as claimed in instant invention, as well (as to instant claims 1, 14-24). 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, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I). Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
29. Further, Satou et al discloses an organic electroluminescent element comprising an electron transport layer, wherein the electron transport layer comprises a phosphine oxide compound of the Formulas II or III below ([0014]-[0021], also as to instant claims 2-4) and a metal dopant, specifically Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Sm or Yb in amount of 2-70%wt, to provide electron donating property ([0133], [0136]).
PNG
media_image13.png
102
323
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
110
339
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Wherein L is a divalent linking group and Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3 are each aryl or heteroaryl ([0041]-[0043], [0048]). Satou et al further discloses the specific compounds of 1-72 (pp. 5-12) which correspond to the requirements of claims 2-3, and thereby would be reasonably expected to have a reduction potential within the range “higher than”/”lower than” as claimed in instant invention. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
The phosphine oxide is deposited by evaporation ([0273]).
30. Thus, Satou et al and Kroeber et al teach a variety of phosphine oxide compounds used as matrixes along with not only alkaline earth, but further rare earth metals including Yb, to improve the electron-donating property of the electroluminescent elements (see [0133] of Satou et al), therefore, based on the combined teachings of Satou et al, Kroeber et al and Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to include, at least partially, or obvious to try to include the phosphine oxide compounds taught by Satou et al and Kroeber et al as the matrix and further not only the alkaline earth metals such as Mg, Ca, but further Yb, as the dopants in the method for forming electron transport layer of the electroluminescent material of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al, so to further improve the electron-donating property of the organic EL device, as well, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
31. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of Noto et al (US 2012/0261651), in further view of Lee et al (US 2010/0139564) and Goebert et al (US 2013/0337174).
32. The discussion with respect to Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of Noto et al (US 2012/0261651) set forth in paragraphs 5-18 above, is incorporated here by reference.
33. Though Oyamada et al discloses the ETL being formed by co-evaporation of the phosphine oxide matrix and the metal, Oyamada et al does not explicitly recite the metal being evaporated from a linear evaporation source.
34. However,
1) Lee et al discloses an evaporation source used for deposition of both an organic film and a metal film (Abstract), wherein the evaporation source is a linear evaporation source ([0044]).
2) Goebert et al discloses the use of linear evaporation source for specifically evaporating metals ([0043], [0040]).
35. Since both an organic film and variety of metals are taught in the art as being evaporated using a linear evaporation source, as shown by Goebert et al and Lee et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Goebert et al, Lee et al and Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al, and to use, or obvious to try to use the linear evaporation source to evaporate at least metals including ytterbium, or both metals and phosphine oxide matrix in the process of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose said evaporation source based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
36. Claim(s) 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of
Noto et al (US 2012/0261651), Kroeber et al (WO 2013/026515) and Satou et al (US 2008/0241518), in further view of Lee et al (US 2010/0139564) and Goebert et al (US 2013/0337174).
It is noted that while the rejection is made over WO 2013/026515 for date purposes, in order to elucidate the examiner's position the corresponding US equivalent viz. US 9,735,385 is relied upon. All citations to paragraph numbers, etc., below refer to US 9,735,385.
37. The discussion with respect to Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of Noto et al (US 2012/0261651), Kroeber et al (WO 2013/026515) and Satou et al (US 2008/0241518), set forth in paragraphs 23-30 above, is incorporated here by reference.
38. Though Oyamada et al discloses the ETL being formed by co-evaporation of the phosphine oxide matrix and the metal, Oyamada et al does not explicitly recite the metal being evaporated from a linear evaporation source.
39. However,
1) Lee et al discloses an evaporation source used for deposition of both an organic film and a metal film (Abstract), wherein the evaporation source is a linear evaporation source ([0044]).
2) Goebert et al discloses the use of linear evaporation source for specifically evaporating metals ([0043], [0040]).
40. Since both an organic film and variety of metals are taught in the art as being evaporated using a linear evaporation source, as shown by Goebert et al and Lee et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Goebert et al, Lee et al and Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al, Kroeber et al and Satou et al and to use, or obvious to try to use the linear evaporation source to evaporate at least metals including ytterbium, or both metals and phosphine oxide matrix in the process of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al, Kroeber et al and Satou et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose said evaporation source based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image15.png
18
19
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141
41. Claim(s) 1, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of
Noto et al (US 2012/0261651), Kroeber et al (WO 2013/026515) and Satou et al (US 2008/0241518), in further view of Dorok et al (WO 2013/079678).
It is noted that while the rejection is made over WO 2013/026515 for date purposes, in order to elucidate the examiner's position the corresponding US equivalent viz. US 9,735,385 is relied upon. All citations to paragraph numbers, etc., below refer to US 9,735,385.
42. The discussion with respect to Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation) in view of Noto et al (US 2012/0261651), Kroeber et al (WO 2013/026515) and Satou et al (US 2008/0241518), set forth in paragraphs 23-30 above, is incorporated here by reference.
43. Though Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al, Kroeber et al and Satou et al do not explicitly recite the use of Li/phosphine oxide compound of formula (II) as claimed in instant invention, however,
Dorok et al discloses OLED device comprising an organic layer comprising the compound of formula (VIII) below (Abstract; p. 4, lines 22-29):
PNG
media_image10.png
220
409
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The compound of Formula (VIII) above provides improved performance to electronic devices, such as reduced operative voltage, longer life time and higher power efficiency (col. 4, lines 18-22).
44. Since the compound of formula (VIII) above is used as additive in EL devices to provide reduced operative voltage, longer life time and higher power efficiency, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to include, at least partially, or would be reasonable to try to include, the compound of formula (VIII) above into the EL device of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al, Kroeber et al and Satou et al so to further provide longer life time and higher power efficiency to EL device of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al, Kroeber et al and Satou et al as well, thereby arriving at the present invention. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-7349. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/IRINA KRYLOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764