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.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed by Applicant on June 10, 2026 has been fully considered. The amendment to instant claim 1 is acknowledged. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to recite Yb as the only metallic element, introducing the limitations of claim 2, and deleting the limitation with respect to reduction potential, thereby broadening the scope of instant claims. In light of the amendment, the previous rejections not cited below are withdrawn. The previous rejections cited below are maintained but suitably framed to better address the current amendment. The new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are set forth below. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
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.
4. Claims 3-8 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.
5. As currently amended, instant claims 3-8 depend on the amended claim 1, wherein there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitations of claims 3-8, because the amended claim 1 is silent with respect to the substituents R1, R2 and R3 being further substituted, so to support the presence of additional phosphine groups of claim 3, and having “conjugated system” for claims 4-8.
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.
6. Claims 1, 3-8 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).
7. The rejection is adequately set forth on pages 3-13 of an Office action mailed on December 10, 2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
8. With respect to the amendment claim 1,
Noto et al discloses an electroluminescent element comprising an electron transport layer comprising electron-donating dopants that include i) rare earth metals, specifically Yb and ii) reducing organic compounds including phosphorus-containing compounds (including the phosphine oxide derivatives used as the host materials in the emissive layer 6) (see [0091] of Noto et al); and iii) constituent material of the electron transport layer ([0090]).
Thus, Noto et al explicitly teaches that said phosphine oxide compounds can be used not only in the emissive layer, but in the electron transport layer as well, along with rare earth metal such as Yb.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Noto et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the combination of Yb and the same the phosphine oxide derivatives used as the host materials in the emissive layer, as the electron-donating dopants in the electron-transport layer of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material 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).
Thus, the combination of the phosphine oxide and Yb metal along with the constituent material in the electron transport material correspond to the semiconducting material of instant claim 1.
9. Claim(s) 1, 3-8 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).
10. The rejection is adequately set forth on pages 14-18 of an Office action mailed on December 10, 2026 and is incorporated here by reference.
11. With respect to the amended claim 1,
1) Noto et al discloses an electroluminescent element comprising an electron transport layer comprising electron-donating dopant that include rare earth metals, specifically Yb and ii) reducing organic compounds including phosphorus-containing compounds (including the phosphine oxide derivatives used as the host materials in the emissive layer 6) (see [0091] of Noto et al); and iii) constituent material of the electron transport layer ([0090]).
Thus, Noto et al explicitly teaches that said phosphine oxide compounds can be used not only in the emissive layer, but in the electron transport layer as well, along with rare earth metal such as Yb.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Noto et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the combination of Yb and the same the phosphine oxide derivatives used as the host materials in the emissive layer 6, in the electron-transport layer of Oyamada et al in view of Noto et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material 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).
2) Satou et al discloses an organic electroluminescent element comprising an electron transport layer specifically citing the phosphine oxide compound ([0015]-[0021]), of the Formulas II or III below:
PNG
media_image1.png
102
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
110
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein L is a divalent linking group and Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3 are each aryl or heteroaryl ([0041]-[0043], [0048]).
Further, Satou et al explicitly teaches that an electron donating dopant may be contained in the electron transport layer, wherein the electron-donating dopant includes Yb and said dopant can be used in amount of 2-70%wt ([0133], [0136]).
Based on the teachings of Satou et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to include, or obvious to try to include Yb as the electron donating dopant into the phosphine oxide-containing electron transport layer of Satou et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, especially since Satou et al further teaches that Yb metal dopant can be used as well as phosphorus-containing compounds in the electron transport layers ([0133]). 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).
Thus, the combination of the phosphine oxide and Yb metal along with the constituent material in the electron transport material correspond to the semiconducting material of instant claim 1.
12. Claims 1, 3-8, 13 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).
13. The rejection adequately set forth on pages 19-21 of an Office action mailed on December 10, 2026 and the discussion set forth in paragraph 8 above, are incorporated here by reference.
14. Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 13 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.
15. The rejection adequately set forth on pages 21-23 of an Office action mailed on December 10, 2026 and the discussion set forth in paragraph 11 above, are incorporated here by reference.
16. Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noto et al (US 2012/0261651) in view of Satou et al (US 2008/0241518) and Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation).
17. Noto et al discloses a method for forming an electroluminescent element comprising an electron transport layer comprising:
i) an electron-donating dopant that includes rare earth metals, specifically Yb, ii) reducing organic compounds including phosphorus-containing compounds (including the phosphine oxide derivatives used as the host materials in the emissive layer 6) (see [0091] of Noto et al), and iii) constituent material of the electron transport layer ([0090]), wherein the method comprises applying the electron transport material on the surface of the emissive layer followed by drying, wherein the method for applying the organic electron transport material and for drying are similar to those described for formation of hole injection layer and a hole transport later (see [0104]), wherein said method comprises dispersing the material followed by drying including removing of solvent ([0097]).
Thus, Noto et al explicitly teaches that said phosphine oxide compounds can be used not only in the emissive layer, but in the electron transport layer as well, along with rare earth metal such as Yb. Therefore, based on the teachings of Noto et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the combination of Yb and the same the phosphine oxide derivatives used as the host materials in the emissive layer, in the electron-transport layer of Noto et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material 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).
Thus, the combination of the phosphine oxide and Yb metal along with the constituent material in the electron transport material correspond to the semiconducting material of instant claim 1.
18. The phosphine oxide host material having the following formula ([0021]-[0024]):
PNG
media_image3.png
486
445
media_image3.png
Greyscale
19. Noto et al further exemplifies the specific phosphine oxide compounds as host materials including ([0025], also as to instant claim 3):
PNG
media_image4.png
379
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Formula (IV)
PNG
media_image5.png
299
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Formula (V)
PNG
media_image6.png
354
312
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Formula (VI)
PNG
media_image7.png
205
468
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Formula VII) (as to instant claims 3-8).
20. It is noted that the compound of formula (VI) of Noto et al corresponds to the inventive compound E2 of instant invention (p. 17, [0082] of instant specification).
21. Though Noto et al does not explicitly recite the amount of used Yb as the dopant and the method comprising the coevaporation/codeposition of phosphine oxide matrix and the metal,
1) 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 a metal dopant (Abstract, [0046]):
PNG
media_image8.png
105
323
media_image8.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 claim 3), and
wherein the method comprises co-evaporation the phosphine oxide compound and the 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.
The phosphine oxide compounds include the following structures [1]-[67], specifically:
PNG
media_image9.png
354
351
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
158
378
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
290
653
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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).
2) Satou et al discloses an organic electroluminescent element comprising an electron transport layer specifically citing the phosphine oxide compound ([0015]-[0021]), of the Formulas II or III below:
PNG
media_image1.png
102
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
110
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein L is a divalent linking group and Ar1, Ar2 and Ar3 are each aryl or heteroaryl ([0041]-[0043], [0048]).
Further, Satou et al explicitly teaches that an electron donating dopant may be contained in the electron transport layer, wherein the electron-donating dopant includes Yb and said dopant can be used in amount of 2-70%wt ([0133], [0136]).
Based on the teachings of Satou et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to include, or obvious to try to include Yb in amount of 2-70%wt as the electron donating dopant into the phosphine oxide-containing electron transport layer of Satou et al as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability, especially since Satou et al further teaches that Yb metal dopant can be used as well as phosphorus-containing compounds in the electron transport layers ([0133]). 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).
22. Since all of Noto et al, Oyamada et al and Satou et al are related to electroluminescent elements comprising phosphine oxide electron transport material and further metal dopants, and thereby belong to the same field of endeavor, wherein
i) Oyamada et al teaches said metal dopants being used in amount of 3-70%wt, and method for making said elements comprising coevaporating and codepositing of the phosphine oxide and the metal dopant, and ii) Satou et al teaches that such metal dopants including Yb are used in the electron transport layers in amount of 2-70%wt, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Noto et al, Oyamada et al and Satou et al, and a) to choose and use Yb as the metal dopant in amount of 2-70%wt along with the phosphine oxide as the electron-donating dopants in the electron transport layer of Noto et al as well, and b) further choose and use the coevaporating/codepositing method taught by Oyamada et al, as the method for forming the electron-transport layer of the electroluminescent element of Noto et al since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability and choose and use a method taught in the art 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_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.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
23. Claims 1, 3-8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noto et al (US 2012/0261651) in view of Satou et al (US 2008/0241518) and Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation), in further view of Lee et al (US 2010/0139564) and Goebert et al (US 2013/0337174).
24. The discussion with respect to Noto et al (US 2012/0261651) in view of Satou et al (US 2008/0241518) and Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation), set forth in paragraphs 16-22 is incorporated here by reference.
25. Though Noto et al in view of Satou et al and Oyamada et al disclose the ETL being formed by co-evaporation of the phosphine oxide matrix and the metal, Noto et al in view of Satou et al and Oyamada et al do not explicitly recite the metal being evaporated from a linear evaporation source.
26. 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]).
27. 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 Noto et al in view of Satou et al and Oyamada 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 Noto et al in view of Satou et al and Oyamada 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_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.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
28. Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumoto et al (US 2013/0092918) in view of Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation).
29. Okumoto et al discloses a method for forming an organic EL device comprising an electron injection layer comprising:
1) a compound having an organic phosphine oxide skeleton ([0023]-[0025]) of the formula A below and
2) a rare earth metal including ytterbium (Yb) in amount of 1-90%wt, or 5-30%wt ([0119], [0122]-[0123]):
PNG
media_image13.png
94
190
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Formula A,
Wherein n is 2 ([0115], [0116]),
Ar1, Ar2, Ar3 and Ar4 are aromatic chromophore including arylene group with 6-60 carbon atoms ([0054]-[0056]),
the method comprises an ink jet method, a nozzle coating method or the like ([0142]).
30. Further exemplified a compound of formula B and a compound of Formula C:
PNG
media_image14.png
144
376
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Formula B
Wherein n is 2 ([0117]);
PNG
media_image15.png
145
372
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Formula C,
Wherein n is 2 ([0118], as to instant claims 4).
31. Based on the teachings of Okumoto et al, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the compounds od formula A, B or C having n equal to 2 as the phosphine oxide compound and further ytterbium Yb as the rare earth metal in amount of 1-90%wt, or 5-30%wt to form the electron injection layer of Okumoto et al, since it would be 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).
32. Though Okumoto et al does not recite the method comprising the coevaporation/codeposition of phosphine oxide matrix and the metal, and the use of other phosphine-oxide compounds,
Oyamada et al discloses a method for making material for a light emitting device, the material comprising:
a) a phosphine oxide compounds of formula (1) below and
b) 3-70%wt of a metal dopant (Abstract, [0046]):
PNG
media_image8.png
105
323
media_image8.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 claim 3), and
wherein the method comprises co-evaporation the phosphine oxide compound and the 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.
33. The phosphine oxide compounds include the following structures [1]-[67], specifically:
PNG
media_image9.png
354
351
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
158
378
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
290
653
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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).
34. Since not only printing and nozzle coating, but further coevaporation/codeposition of the phosphine oxide compounds and metals are taught in the art as the methods for making layers in EL elements, as shown by Oyamada et al, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oyamada et al and Okumoto et al, and to apply, or obvious to try to apply the method of coevaporation and codeposition of Oyamada et al to form the electron injection layer of Okumoto et al, since such method is taught in the art and it would be obvious to apply it when suitable, and further to choose and use, at least in a minor amount the phosphine oxide compounds of Oyamada et al to form the electron injection layer of Okumoto et al, 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). 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_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.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
35. Claims 1, 3-8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumoto et al (US 2013/0092918) in view of Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation), in further view of Lee et al (US 2010/0139564) and Goebert et al (US 2013/0337174).
36. The discussion with respect to Okumoto et al (US 2013/0092918) in view of Oyamada et al (JP 2006073581, based on machine English translation), set forth in paragraphs 28-34 is incorporated here by reference.
37. Though Okumoto et al in view of Oyamada et al disclose the ETL being formed by co-evaporation of the phosphine oxide matrix and the metal, Okumoto et al in view of Oyamada et al do not explicitly recite the metal being evaporated from a linear evaporation source.
38. 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]).
39. 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 Okumoto et al in view of Oyamada 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 Okumoto et al in view of Oyamada 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_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image12.png
18
19
media_image12.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
Response to Arguments
40. Applicant's arguments filed on June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the new grounds or rejection and discussion set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights