Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the CON application No. 18/887,124 filed on September 17, 2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS have been considered.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claim 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,997 B2 and in view of Seo et al. (US 2017/0062749 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hashimoto et al. recites a light-emitting device comprising:
an anode (claim 1, line 2);
a cathode (claim 1, line 3); and
an EL layer between the anode and the cathode (claim 1, line 4), wherein the EL layer comprises a light-emitting layer and an electron-transport layer (claim 1, lines 5-6),
wherein the electron-transport layer comprises a third organic compound and a first substance (claim 1, lines 7-8),
wherein the first substance is any of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, an organic complex of an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal, and a compound of an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal (claim 1, lines 9-12),
wherein the third organic compound is an organic compound with an electron-transport property (claim 1, lines 13-14),
wherein the electron-transport layer comprises a first region and a second region in a thickness direction (claim 1, lines 15-16),
wherein an amount of the first substance in the first region is different (obvious greater or smaller) from an amount of the first substance in the second region (claim 1, lines 17-19), and
wherein the first region is closer to the anode than the second region is in the electron-transport layer (claim 1, lines 20-21).
Hashimoto et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein, the EL layer comprises a hole-injection layer, wherein the hole-injection layer comprises a first organic compound and a second organic compound, wherein the first organic compound comprises a cyano group or a halogen group, wherein a HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
Seo et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1), the EL layer (103) comprises a hole-injection layer (para [0054]), wherein the hole-injection layer comprises a first organic compound (a first substance which is an organic compound having a hole-transport property) and a second organic compound (a second substance having an electron acceptor property), wherein the first organic compound comprises a cyano group (para [0057]) or a halogen group, wherein a HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV (greater than or equal to −7.0 eV and less than or equal to −5.7 eV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Seo et al. to the light-emitting device of Hashimoto et al. by substituting with the material, in order to extract electrons from the substance having a high hole-transport property by the acceptor substance to generate holes and the holes are injected into the light-emitting layer through the hole-transport layer.
Even Seo et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the range of the HOMO level as claimed. It should be noted that although the HOMO level of the organic substrate taught by Seo et al. is not within the range specified in the present claim, it has to be held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Furthermore, it has been held where 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. The differences in thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness is critical (MPEP §2144.05 II/III).
Regarding independent claim 2, Hashimoto et al. recites a light-emitting device comprising:
an anode (claim 3, line 2);
a cathode (claim 3, line 3); and
an EL layer between the anode and the cathode (claim 3, line 4),
wherein the EL layer comprises a light-emitting layer and an electron-transport layer (claim 3, lines 5-6),
wherein the electron-transport layer comprises a third organic compound and a first substance (claim 3, lines 7-8),
wherein the first substance is any of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, an organic complex of an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal, and a compound of an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal (claim 3, line 9-12),
wherein the third organic compound is an organic compound with an electron-transport property (claim 3, lines 13-14),
wherein the electron-transport layer comprises a first region and a second region in a thickness direction (claim 3, lines 15-16),
wherein an amount of the third organic compound in the first region is different (obvious, i.e. smaller or greater) from an amount of the third organic compound in the second region (claim 3, lines 17-19), and
wherein the first region is closer to the anode than the second region is in the electron-transport layer (claim 3, lines 20-21).
Hashimoto et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein, the EL layer comprises a hole-injection layer, wherein the hole-injection layer comprises a first organic compound and a second organic compound, wherein the first organic compound comprises a cyano group or a halogen group, wherein a HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
Seo et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1), the EL layer (103) comprises a hole-injection layer (para [0054]), wherein the hole-injection layer comprises a first organic compound (a first substance which is an organic compound having a hole-transport property) and a second organic compound (a second substance having an electron acceptor property), wherein the first organic compound comprises a cyano group (para [0057]) or a halogen group, wherein a HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV (greater than or equal to −7.0 eV and less than or equal to −5.7 eV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Seo et al. to the light-emitting device of Hashimoto et al. by substituting with the material, in order to extract electrons from the substance having a high hole-transport property by the acceptor substance to generate holes and the holes are injected into the light-emitting layer through the hole-transport layer.
Even Seo et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the range of the HOMO level as claimed. It should be noted that although the HOMO level of the organic substrate taught by Seo et al. is not within the range specified in the present claim, it has to be held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Furthermore, it has been held where 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. The differences in thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness is critical (MPEP §2144.05 II/III).
Regarding independent claim 3, Hashimoto et al. recites a light-emitting device comprising:
an anode (claim 5, line 2);
a cathode (claim 5, line 3); and
an EL layer between the anode and the cathode (claim 5, line 4),
wherein the EL layer comprises a first layer, a second layer, a third layer, a light-emitting layer, and a fourth layer in this order from the anode side (claim 5, lines 5-7),
wherein the first layer is in contact with the anode (claim 5, line 8),
wherein the first layer comprises a first organic compound and a second organic compound (claim 5, lines 9-10),
wherein the second layer comprises a third organic compound (claim 5, lines 11-12),
wherein the third layer comprises a fourth organic compound (claim 5, lines 13-14),
wherein the light-emitting layer comprises a fifth organic compound and a sixth organic compound (claim 5, lines 15-16),
wherein the fourth layer comprises a seventh organic compound and a first substance (claim 5, lines 17-18),
wherein the first substance is any of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, an organic complex of an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal, and a compound of an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal (claim 5, lines 23-26),
wherein a HOMO level of the second organic compound is higher than or equal to -5.7 eV and lower than or equal to -5.4 eV (claim 5, lines 27-29),
wherein electron mobility of the seventh organic compound is higher than or equal to 1 × 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 × 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] is 600 (claim 5, lines 30-32),
wherein the fourth layer comprises a first region and a second region in a thickness direction (claim 5, lines 33-34),
wherein an amount of the seventh organic compound in the first region is different from an amount of the seventh organic compound in the second region (claim 5, lines 35-37), and
wherein the first region is closer to the anode than the second region is in the fourth layer (claim 5, lines 38-39).
Hashimoto et al. appears not to explicitly disclose wherein, the first organic compound comprises a cyano group or a halogen group, wherein the fifth organic compound is an emission center substance.
Seo et al. teaches wherein (Fig. 1), the first organic compound comprises a cyano group (para [0057]) or a halogen group, wherein the fifth organic compound is an emission center substance (para [0114]).
.It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the teaching as taught by Seo et al. to the light-emitting device of Hashimoto et al. by substituting with the material, in order to extract electrons from the substance having a high hole-transport property by the acceptor substance to generate holes and the holes are injected into the light-emitting layer through the hole-transport layer, and suppress the transfer of energy from an exciton generated in the light-emitting.
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the amount of the first substance in the first region is larger than the amount of the first substance in the second region (claim 1, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the amount of the third organic compound in the first region is smaller than the amount of the third organic compound in the second region (claim 3, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the amount of the seventh organic compound in the first region is larger than the amount of the seventh organic compound in the second region (claim 1, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 7, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, electron mobility of the third organic compound is higher than or equal to 1 × 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 × 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] is 600 (claim 5, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 8, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, electron mobility of the third organic compound is higher than or equal to 1 × 10-7 cm2/Vs and lower than or equal to 5 × 10-5 cm2/Vs when a square root of electric field strength [V/cm] is 600 (claim 5, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 9, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the fourth layer is in contact with the light-emitting layer (claim 6, lines 2-3), and
wherein a HOMO level of the seventh organic compound is higher than or equal to -6.0 eV (claim 6, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, a difference between a HOMO level of the third organic compound and the HOMO level of the second organic compound is less than or equal to 0.2 eV (claim 7, lines 2-4), and
wherein the HOMO level of the third organic compound is deeper than or equal to the HOMO level of the second organic compound (claim 7, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the second organic compound comprises a first hole-transport skeleton (claim 8, lines 2-3),
wherein the third organic compound comprises a second hole-transport skeleton (claim 8, lines 4-5),
wherein the fourth organic compound comprises a third hole-transport skeleton (claim 8, lines 6-7), and
wherein the first hole-transport skeleton, the second hole-transport skeleton, and the third hole-transport skeleton are independently any one of a carbazole skeleton, a dibenzofuran skeleton, a dibenzothiophene skeleton, and an anthracene skeleton (claim 8, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 12, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the seventh organic compound comprises an anthracene skeleton (claim 9, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the electron mobility of the seventh organic compound is lower than electron mobility of the sixth organic compound (claim 11, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 14, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, a difference between a HOMO level of the fourth organic compound and a HOMO level of the third organic compound is less than or equal to 0.2 eV (claim 12, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 15, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the second organic compound comprises a dibenzofuran skeleton (claim 14, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 16, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the second organic compound comprises a dibenzofuran skeleton (claim 14, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 17, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the second organic compound comprises a dibenzofuran skeleton (claim 14, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 18, Hashimoto et al. recites wherein, the fifth organic compound is a blue fluorescent material (claim 16, lines 2-3).
Examiner’s Note
7. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
9. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights