DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to a Preliminary Amendment filed on 06/24/2026, in which claims 1-20 are canceled, and new claims 21-44 are added.
Currently, claims 21-44 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 09/18/2024, 01/12/2026 and 06/24/2026. The IDS have been considered.
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:
(Marked-Up Version) Light Emitting Device Including Organic Compound
(Clean Version) Light Emitting Device Including Organic Compound
I. Prior-art rejections based on Suzuki
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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 21, 24-25, 27, 29, 32-33, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over JP 2014209603 A. Since JP 2014209603 A is a Japanese patent publication published on 11/06/2014, which is also published as U.S. patent publication no. US 2016/0163991 A1 to Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”), Suzuki has been relied as an English translation of JP 2014209603 A. Please note that paragraphs ("¶") cited below are from Suzuki.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 21, Suzuki in Fig. 3 teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 3 & ¶ 29, light-emitting element) comprising:
a first electrode 101 (¶ 66, anode 101);
a second electrode 102 (¶ 66, cathode 102); and
a first layer 107 (¶ 79, hole-injection layer 107), a hole-transport layer 103 (¶ 79, hole-transport layer 103), and a light-emitting layer 104 (¶ 66, light-emitting layer 104) between the first electrode 101 and the second electrode 102 (Fig. 3),
wherein the first layer 107 is between the first electrode 101 and the light-emitting layer 104 (Fig. 3),
wherein the first layer 107 comprises a first organic compound 107 (¶ 80, hole-injection layer 107 contains a high hole-transport property including the anthracene compound represented by General Formula (G1); ¶ 70-¶ 71, anthracene compound of G1 includes phenyl ground and biphenyl group (i.e., two phenyl groups) as substituents bonded carbon at 9-position of fluorene skeleton, which is the same first organic compound as the Applicant purported in claim 21 of the present application),
wherein the first organic compound 107 comprises a skeleton in which two phenyl groups as substituents are bonded to carbon at a 9-position of a fluorene skeleton (¶ 70-¶ 71),
wherein the hole-transport layer 103 is between the first layer 107 and the light-emitting layer 104 (Fig. 1),
wherein the hole-transport layer 103 comprises a second organic compound 103 (¶ 19, ¶ 21, ¶ 115, the hole-transport layer 103 includes a hole-transport organic compound and the anthracene compound represented by formula G1 i.e., organic compound).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the first layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm is lower than a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the hole-transport layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm.
However, Suzuki teaches a general condition in which with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm, the first layer 107 has a refractive index, and the hole-transport layer 103 has a refractive index, as all materials have a refractive index.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Suzuki teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of wherein a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the first layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm being lower than a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the hole-transport layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Suzuki renders claim 21 obvious.
Regarding claim 24, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the first organic compound 107 further comprises a carbazole skeleton (¶ 97,carbazole compounds include carbazole skeleton).
Regarding claim 25, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the second organic compound 103 comprises a carbazole skeleton (¶ 97, carbazole compounds include carbazole skeleton).
Regarding claim 27, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the first layer 107 comprises at least one of a halogen group and a cyano group (¶ 85-¶ 86, the hole-injection layer 107 comprises the anthracene compound represented by formula G1, which includes halogen).
Regarding independent claim 29, Suzuki in Fig. 3 teaches a light-emitting device (Fig. 3 & ¶ 29, light-emitting element) comprising:
a first electrode 101 (¶ 66, anode 101);
a second electrode 102 (¶ 66, cathode 102); and
a first layer 107 (¶ 79, hole-injection layer 107), a hole-transport layer 103 (¶ 79, hole-transport layer 103), and a light-emitting layer 104 (¶ 66, light-emitting layer 104) between the first electrode 101 and the second electrode 102 (Fig. 3),
wherein the first layer 107 is between the first electrode 101 and the light-emitting layer 104 (Fig. 3),
wherein the first layer 107 comprises a first organic compound 107 (¶ 80, hole-injection layer 107 contains a high hole-transport property including the anthracene compound represented by General Formula (G1); ¶ 70-¶ 71, anthracene compound of G1 includes phenyl ground and biphenyl group (i.e., two phenyl groups) as substituents bonded carbon at 9-position of fluorene skeleton, which is the same first organic compound as the Applicant purported in claim 29 of the present application),
wherein the first organic compound 107 comprises a skeleton in which two phenyl groups as substituents are bonded to carbon at a 9-position of a fluorene skeleton (¶ 70-¶ 71),
wherein the hole-transport layer 103 is between the first layer 107 and the light-emitting layer 104 (Fig. 1),
wherein the hole-transport layer 103 comprises a second organic compound 103 (¶ 19, ¶ 21, ¶ 115, the hole-transport layer 103 includes a hole-transport organic compound and the anthracene compound represented by formula G1 i.e., organic compound).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the first layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm is lower than a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the hole-transport layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm.
However, Suzuki teaches a general condition in which with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm, the first layer 107 has a refractive index, and the hole-transport layer 103 has a refractive index, as all materials have a refractive index.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Suzuki teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the first layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm being lower than a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the hole-transport layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Suzuki renders claim 29 obvious.
Regarding claim 32, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the first organic compound 107 further comprises a carbazole skeleton (¶ 97,carbazole compounds include carbazole skeleton).
Regarding claim 33, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the second organic compound 103 comprises a carbazole skeleton (¶ 97, carbazole compounds include carbazole skeleton).
Regarding claim 35, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the first layer 107 comprises at least one of a halogen group and a cyano group (¶ 85-¶ 86, the hole-injection layer 107 comprises the anthracene compound represented by formula G1, which includes halogen).
Regarding claim 37, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the first organic compound 107 further comprises at least one of a methyl group (¶ 97) and a butyl group (¶ 98).
Regarding claim 39, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the first organic compound 107 further comprises at least one of a methyl group (¶ 97) and a butyl group (¶ 98).
Regarding claim 41, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the second organic compound 103 comprises an aromatic amine skeleton (¶ 97, aromatic amine compound includes an aromatic amine skeleton).
Regarding claim 43, Suzuki in Fig. 3 further teaches the second organic compound 103 comprises an aromatic amine skeleton (¶ 97, aromatic amine compound includes an aromatic amine skeleton).
II. Prior-art rejections based on Kitamura
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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 23, 26, 28, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over US 2010/0171417 A1 to Kitamura et al. (“Kitamura”).
PNG
media_image2.png
331
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 23, Kitamura in Fig. 1 teaches a light-emitting device 10 (¶ 117, organic electroluminescent device 10) comprising:
a first electrode 3 (¶ 117, anode 3);
a second electrode 9 (¶ 117, cathode 9); and
a first layer 4 (¶ 117, hole injection layer 4), a hole-transport layer 5 (¶ 117, hole transport layer 5), and a light-emitting layer 6 (¶ 117, light emitting layer 6) between the first electrode 4 and the second electrode 9 (Fig. 1),
wherein the first layer 4 is between the first electrode 3 and the light-emitting layer 6 (Fig. 1),
wherein the first layer 4 comprises a first organic compound 4 (¶ 117, ¶ 48 & ¶ 122 disclose organic layer including hole injection layer 4 contains charge transport material),
wherein the first organic compound 4 comprises a tetraarylmethane skeleton and a pyrrole skeleton (¶ 16, charge transport material of hole injection layer 4 represented by general formula (1); ¶ 84, general formula (1) is more preferably a compound represented by general formula (3); ¶ 85, ¶ 71-¶ 72, a structure in which both R1 and R2 represent an aryl group is of a tetraarylmethane structure (i.e., skeleton); ¶ 88, Q in general formula (3) is a pyrrole ring (i.e., skeleton)),
wherein the hole-transport layer 5 is between the first layer 4 and the light-emitting layer 6 (Fig. 1),
wherein the hole-transport layer 5 comprises a second organic compound 5 (¶ 122, hole transport layer 5 is an organic layer i.e., organic compound).
Kitamura does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the first layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm is lower than a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the hole-transport layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm.
However, Kitamura teaches a general condition in which with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm, the first layer 4 has a refractive index, and the hole-transport layer 5 has a refractive index, as all materials have a refractive index.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Kitamura teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the first layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm being lower than a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the hole-transport layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 532 nm produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Kitamura renders claim 23 obvious.
Regarding claim 26, Kitamura in Fig. 1 further teaches the second organic compound 5 comprises at least one of a carbazole skeleton and a dibenzofuran skeleton (¶ 368, hole-transport layer 5 comprises carbazole, which would include a carbazole skeleton).
Regarding claim 28, Kitamura in Fig. 1 further teaches the first layer 4 comprises at least one of a halogen group and a cyano group (¶ 16, ¶ 48, ¶ 86-¶ 87, ¶ 122, the layer 4 includes charge transport material represented by general formula (1) comprising at least one of halogen atom and cyano group).
Regarding independent claim 31, Kitamura in Fig. 1 teaches a light-emitting device 10 (¶ 117, organic electroluminescent device 10) comprising:
a first electrode 3 (¶ 117, anode 3);
a second electrode 9 (¶ 117, cathode 9); and
a first layer 4 (¶ 117, hole injection layer 4), a hole-transport layer 5 (¶ 117, hole transport layer 5), and a light-emitting layer 6 (¶ 117, light emitting layer 6) between the first electrode 4 and the second electrode 9 (Fig. 1),
wherein the first layer 4 is between the first electrode 3 and the light-emitting layer 6 (Fig. 1),
wherein the first layer 4 comprises a first organic compound 4 (¶ 117, ¶ 48 & ¶ 122 disclose organic layer including hole injection layer 4 contains charge transport material),
wherein the first organic compound 4 comprises a tetraarylmethane skeleton and a pyrrole skeleton (¶ 16, charge transport material of hole injection layer 4 represented by general formula (1); ¶ 84, general formula (1) is more preferably a compound represented by general formula (3); ¶ 85, ¶ 71-¶ 72, a structure in which both R1 and R2 represent an aryl group is of a tetraarylmethane structure (i.e., skeleton); ¶ 88, Q in general formula (3) is a pyrrole ring (i.e., skeleton)),
wherein the hole-transport layer 5 is between the first layer 4 and the light-emitting layer 6 (Fig. 1),
wherein the hole-transport layer 5 comprises a second organic compound 5 (¶ 122, hole transport layer 5 is an organic layer i.e., organic compound).
Kitamura does not explicitly disclose a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the first layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm is lower than a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the hole-transport layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm.
However, Kitamura teaches a general condition in which with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm, the first layer 4 has a refractive index, and the hole-transport layer 5 has a refractive index, as all materials have a refractive index.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Kitamura teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the first layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm being lower than a refractive index of an ordinary ray of the hole-transport layer with respect to light with a wavelength of 633 nm produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Kitamura renders claim 31 obvious.
Regarding claim 34, Kitamura in Fig. 1 further teaches the second organic compound 5 comprises at least one of a carbazole skeleton and a dibenzofuran skeleton (¶ 368, hole-transport layer 5 comprises carbazole, which would include a carbazole skeleton).
Regarding claim 36, Kitamura in Fig. 1 further teaches the first layer 4 comprises at least one of a halogen group and a cyano group (¶ 16, ¶ 48, ¶ 86-¶ 87, ¶ 122, the layer 4 includes charge transport material represented by general formula (1) comprising at least one of halogen atom and cyano group).
Regarding claim 38, Kitamura in Fig. 1 further teaches the first organic compound 4 further comprises at least one of a methyl group and a cyclohexyl group (¶ 24, ¶ 54-¶ 60, ¶ 226).
Regarding claim 40, Kitamura in Fig. 1 further teaches the first organic compound 4 further comprises at least one of a methyl group and a cyclohexyl group (¶ 24, ¶ 54-¶ 60, ¶ 226).
Regarding claim 42, Kitamura in Fig. 1 further teaches the second organic compound 5 comprises an aromatic amine skeleton (¶ 368, hole-transport layer 5 comprises aromatic tertiary amine compound including a aromatic tertiary amine skeleton).
Regarding claim 44, Kitamura in Fig. 1 further teaches the second organic compound 5 comprises an aromatic amine skeleton (¶ 368, hole-transport layer 5 comprises aromatic tertiary amine compound including a aromatic tertiary amine skeleton).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 22 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 22 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 22, wherein the first organic compound further comprises a pyrrole skeleton.
Claim 30 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 30, wherein the first organic compound further comprises a pyrrole skeleton.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0049768 A1 to Seo et al. relates to a light-emitting device including an organic compound having a fluorene skeleton and a structure in which an electron-accepting unit and a hole-accepting unit are bonded through carbon at the 9-position of the fluorene skeleton. The use of the organic compound makes it possible to reduce power consumption of the light-emitting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights