DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group II, claims 11-29 drawn to a composition in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 11-18 and 26-29 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.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant recites “Condition (ii): a first linking structure … being represented by a formula (X1), (X2), (X3), (X4), or (X5) below, …, the benzene ring and the naphthalene ring in the first linking structure being further linked to each other by cross-linking at least one site other than the single bond.” As written, the claim allows the first linking structure can be a formula (X1), (X2), (X3), (X4), or (X5). However, the claim further states “the benzene ring and the naphthalene ring in the first linking structure being further linked to each other by cross-linking at least one site other than the single bond”. The formulas (X1) to (X5) do not have a further linking structure. It is unclear whether the “further linked” is required or optional. For example, it is unclear whether a compound comprising at least one of Formulas (X1) to (X5) without further linking reads on the Condition (ii).
For the purpose of prosecution the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that Condition (ii): a first linking structure … being represented by a formula (X1), (X2), (X3), (X4), or (X5) below, …, the benzene ring and the naphthalene ring in the first linking structure being further linked or not linked to each other by cross-linking at least one site other than the single bond (emphasis added). That is, a compound comprising the structure represented by one of the Formulas (X1) to (X5) reads on the Condition (ii).
Regarding claims 12-18 and 26-29, claims 12-18 and 26-29 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 11.
Claim 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant recites “when a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic ring or a substituted or unsubstituted fused ring is formed with the ring A, a group represented by a formula (H141) above is bonded to …. the carbon atom C1 being bonded with a single bond to a carbon atom C2 of a ring B; …” (page 312-313, emphasis added). As written it appears that the group of formula (H141) can be bonded to the carbon C1. However, the carbon C1 does not have free valence electron to bond with formula (H141). It is unclear whether there is an option that the group of formula (H141) can be bonded to the carbon C1, rendering this claim indefinite.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that there is no option to bond the group of formula (H141) to the carbon C1.
Regarding claims 16-17, claims 16-17 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, 14, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1, hereafter Ito).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14, and 26-28, Ito discloses a compound used for an organic electroluminescence (EL) device ([0010]) and exemplifies an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 as a host, Compound D-2 as a dopant), and a cathode (Example 20 in Table 1, [0139]-[0141]), wherein the Compound H-7 is a first compound; the Compound D-2 of Ito is a second compound; the Compound D-2 of Ito is a first luminescent compound, and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
Ito discloses the EL device comprising the Compound D-2 of Ito as the luminescent material emits blue light with the chromaticity of (0.13, 0.17) ([0147], Table 1), which is equivalent to light having the peak wavelength of 500 nm or less.
PNG
media_image1.png
295
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound H-7 of Ito has the identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (H13).
Claims 11-12 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (EP 2003108 A, hereafter Kubota).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 26-27, Kubota discloses a benzanthracene compound used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0005]-[0008]) and exemplifies Compound BAN-17 ([0024]). Kubota exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound BAN-17 as a host, Compound BD-1 as a dopant), and a cathode (Table 1 and [0070]), wherein the emitting layer materials are equated a composition; the compounds BAN-17 and BD-1 are a first and a second (or a second and a first) compound; the Compound BD-1 is a first luminescent compound.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
Claims 11, 19, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kadoma et al (US 2011/0210316 A1, hereafter Kadoma) as evidenced by Takahashi et al. (US 2017/0271610 A1, hereafter Takahashi).
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 23-27, Kadoma discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (compound PCPDBq as a host, compound PCBNBB as a host, and an Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm) as a dopant), and a cathode (light emitting element 11 in [0471]-[0476], Table 5), wherein the PCPDBq is a first compound; the PCBNBB is a second compound; Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm) is a first luminescent compound, and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
PNG
media_image3.png
360
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Takahashi evidenced that the HOMO and triplet excited state (T1) energies of PCPDBq being -5.83 eV and 2.21 eV (first organic compound in at least Example 37 in Tables 3 and 11); and the HOMO and T1 energies of PCBNBB being -5.43 eV and 2.21 eV (second organic compound in at least Example 48 in Tables 3 and 11).
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 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 19-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1, hereafter Ito) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2010/0295444 A1, hereafter Kuma).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 22-24, Ito discloses a compound used for an organic electroluminescence (EL) device ([0010]) and exemplifies an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 as a host, Compound D-2 as a dopant), and a cathode (Example 20 in Table 1, [0139]-[0141]), wherein the Compound H-7 is a first compound; the Compound D-2 of Ito is a second compound; the Compound D-2 of Ito is a first luminescent compound, and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
PNG
media_image1.png
295
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound H-7 of Ito has the identical structure as Applicant’s Formula (H13).
The organic electroluminescent device of Ito reads on the claimed limitation above but fails to teach some properties of the constituent materials including: 1) the triplet energy of the Compound H-7 is larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV (Numerical Formula A81); 2) the triplet energy of the Compound D-2 is larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV (Numerical Formula A91); 3) the HOMO energy of the Compound D-2 is -5.5 eV.
It is reasonable to presume the organic electroluminescent device of Ito inherently possesses the properties 1) and 3) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the triplet energies of the first and the second compounds are each larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV ([0385]). The Compound H-7 of Ito has identical structure as Applicant’s compound represented by Formula (H13) ([0212]), and has substantially similar structure as the specific embodiment of the first or the second compound ([0272], the compound in [0343] on page 116),
PNG
media_image4.png
90
175
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Kuma teaches that Compound BD2 of Kuma has a T1 energy of 2.28 eV and the ionization potential of 5.5 eV ([0142]). The Compound BD2 of Kuma has identical backbone structure as the Compound D-2 of Ito, thus, the T1 energy of the Compound D-2 of Ito should be substantially similar as 2.28 eV. The magnitude of the ionization potential is known to be same as the HOMO except the polarity ([0142]); thus, the HOMO energy of the Compound D-2 of Ito is -5.5 eV.
Therefore, the organic electroluminescent device of Kubota has the properties of the constituent materials including: 1) the triplet energy of the Compound H-7 is larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV (Numerical Formula A81), 2) the triplet energy of the Compound D-2 is larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV (Numerical Formula A91); and 3) the HOMO energy of the Compound D-2 is -5.5 eV.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic electroluminescent device of Ito is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
The Organic electroluminescent device of Ito reads on all the limitations of claims 19-20 and 22-24.
Claims 11-12, 14, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2010/0295444 A1) and Yoneda et al. (US 2004/0222736 A1, hereafter Yoneda).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-29, Ito discloses a compound used for an organic electroluminescence (EL) device ([0010]) and exemplifies an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 as a host, Compound D-2 as a dopant), and a cathode (Example 20 in Table 1, [0139]-[0141]), wherein the Compound H-7 is a first compound; the Compound D-2 of Ito is a second compound; the Compound D-2 of Ito is a first luminescent compound, and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
The organic electroluminescence device reads on all the limitations of claims 11-12, 14, 19-20, 22-24, and 26-28 as outlined above.
The organic electroluminescent device of Ito has the emitter Compound D-2 of Ito which emits blue light, not white light.
Yoneda teaches a white light emitting EL device having a structure comprising an anode, a blue emitting layer, a green emitting layer, and a red emitting layer ([0002], Fig. 6).
Yoneda teaches a green emitter, Compound GD having T1 energy of 1.85 eV and peak wavelength of 518 nm ([0142]).
Yoneda teaches the layered structure of the EL device of Yoneda provides improved luminous efficiency ([0041]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Ito by incorporating a green emitting layer comprising Compound GD of Yoneda as a dopant at the adjacent layer to the blue emitting layer and cathode, as taught by Yoneda.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting EL device with improved luminous efficiency based on the teaching of Yoneda.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kuma and Yoneda comprising an anode, a first emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito and Compound D-2 of Ito), a second emitting layer (Compound GD of Yoneda), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 is a first compound; the Compound D-2 of Ito is a second compound; the Compound GD is a third compound, and the first emitting layer materials are a composition. The T1 energies of both Compound H-7 of Ito and the Compound D-2 of Ito are each between 2.0 eV and 2.3 eV as outlined above. The T1 energy of the Compound GD of Yoneda is 1.85 eV ([0142]). Thus, the first through third compounds satisfy the Numerical Formulas A14 and A15.
Claims 11-18 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2010/0289013 A1) in view of Sakaki et al. (JP 2000/178548 A, machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Sakaki).
Regarding claims 11-18 and 26-27, Ito discloses a compound used for an organic EL device ([0010]) and exemplifies an organic EL device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 as a host, Compound D-2 as a dopant), and a cathode (Example 20 in Table 1, [0139]-[0141]).
The fluorescent dopant of the organic EL device of Ito (D-2) does not comprise a benzanthracene dopant; however, Ito does teach that a fused polycyclic aromatic compounds can be preferably used as the fluorescent dopant ([0076]).
Sakaki discloses a polycyclic aromatic compound used as a light emitting material ([0010]). Sakaki exemplifies a compound (the last compound in [0023], hereafter Compound A).
PNG
media_image5.png
221
549
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sakaki teaches the compound of Sakaki provides high luminous efficiency, high durability, and green fluorescence ([0007], [0017]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescence device of Ito by substituting the fluorescent dopant with the Example A compound of Sakaki.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide high luminous efficiency, high durability, and green fluorescence based on the teaching of Sakaki.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of fluorescent dopants would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Sakaki comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound H-7 of Ito as a host, Compound A of Sakaki as a dopant), and a cathode, wherein the Compound H-7 of Ito is a first compound; the Compound A of Sakaki is a second compound; the Compound A of Sakaki is a first luminescent compound, and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
Claims 19-20, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (EP 2003108 A) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2010/0295444 A1).
Regarding claims 19-20, 23, and 28, Kubota discloses a benzanthracene compound used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0005]-[0008]) and exemplifies Compound BAN-17 ([0024]). Kubota exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound BAN-17 as a host, Compound BD-1 as a dopant), and a cathode (Table 1 and [0070]), wherein the emitting layer materials are equated with a composition; the compounds BAN-17 and BD-1 are a first and a second (or a second and a first) compound; and the Compound BD-1 is a first luminescent compound.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The organic electroluminescent device of Kubota reads on the claimed limitation above but fails to teach some properties of the constituent materials including: 1) the triplet energy of the Compound BAN-17 is larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV (Numerical Formula A81); 2) the triplet energy of the Compound BD-1 is larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV (Numerical Formula A91); and 3) the Compound BD-1 emits light having maximum peak wavelength of 500 nm or less.
It is reasonable to presume the organic electroluminescent device of Kubota inherently possesses the properties 1) and 3) above.
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
The instant specification states the triplet energies of the first and the second compounds are each larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV ([0385]). The Compound BAN-17 of Kubota has identical structure as Applicant’s compound represented by Formula (H13) ([0212]), and has substantially similar structure as (i.e. position isomer of) the specific embodiment of the first or the second compound ([0272], the 9th compound in [0380] on page 151),
PNG
media_image6.png
129
246
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
Kuma teaches that Compound BD2 of Kuma has a T1 energy of 2.28 eV and an emission peak wavelength of 463 nm ([0142]). The Compound BD2 of Kuma has identical backbone structure as the Compound BD-1 of Kubota, thus, the T1 energy of the Compound BD-1 of Kubota should be substantially similar as 2.28 eV and the emission peak wavelength of the Compound BD-1 should be substantially similar as 463 nm.
Therefore, the organic electroluminescent device of Kubota has the properties: 1) the triplet energy of the Compound BAN-17 is larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV (Numerical Formula A81), 2) the triplet energy of the Compound BD-1 is larger than 2.0 eV and smaller than 2.3 eV (Numerical Formula A91), and 3) the Compound BD-1 emits light having maximum peak wavelength of 500 nm or less.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic electroluminescent device of Kubota is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
In the composition of Kubota, the HOMO energies of the compounds BAN-17 and BD-1 must be different; that is, one must be higher than the other because two compounds have different structures. The first compound is the compound having higher HOMO energy among the Compound BAN-17 of Kubota and the Compound BD-1 of Kubota, and the second compound is the compound having lower HOMO energy among the Compound BAN-17 of Kubota and the Compound BD-1 of Kubota.
The Organic electroluminescent device of Kubota reads on all the limitations of claims 19-20, 23, and 28.
Claims 11-12, 19-20, 23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (EP 2003108 A) in view of Kuma et al. (US 2010/0295444 A1) and Yoneda et al. (US 2004/0222736 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, 19-20, 23, and 26-29, Kubota discloses a benzanthracene compound used for an organic electroluminescent device ([0005]-[0008]) and exemplifies Compound BAN-17 ([0024]). Kubota exemplifies an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (Compound BAN-17 as a host, Compound BD-1 as a dopant), and a cathode (Table 1 and [0070]), wherein the emitting layer materials are equated with a composition; the compounds BAN-17 and BD-1 are a first and a second (or a second and a first) compound; and the Compound BD-1 is a first luminescent compound.
The organic electroluminescence device reads on all the limitations of claims 11-12, 19-20, 23, and 26-28, as outlined above.
The organic electroluminescent device of Kubota has the emitter Compound BD-1 of Kubota which emits blue light, not white light.
Yoneda teaches a white light emitting EL device having a structure comprising an anode, a blue emitting layer, a green emitting layer, and a red emitting layer ([0002], Fig. 6).
Yoneda teaches a green emitter, Compound GD having T1 energy of 1.85 eV and peak wavelength of 518 nm ([0142]).
Yoneda teaches the layered structure of the EL device of Yoneda provides improved luminous efficiency ([0041]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Kubota by incorporating a green emitting layer comprising Compound GD of Yoneda as a dopant at the adjacent layer to the blue emitting layer and cathode, as taught by Yoneda.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting EL device with improved luminous efficiency based on the teaching of Yoneda.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescence device of Ito as modified by Kuma and Yoneda comprising an anode, a first emitting layer (Compound BAN-17 of Kubota as a host, Compound BD-1 of Kubota as a dopant), a second emitting layer (Compound GD of Yoneda), and a cathode, wherein the Compound BAN-17 of Kubota is a first compound; the Compound BD-1 of Kubota is a second compound; the Compound GD of Yoneda is a third compound, and the first emitting layer materials are a composition. The T1 energies of both Compound BAN-17 of Kubota and the Compound BD-1 of Kubota are each between 2.0 eV and 2.3 eV as outlined above. The T1 energy of the Compound GD of Yoneda is 1.85 eV ([0142]). Thus, the first through third compounds satisfy the Numerical Formulas A14 and A15.
Claims 11, 19, and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadoma et al (US 2011/0210316 A1) in view of Yoneda et al. (US 2004/0222736 A1) and Hatakeyama et al. (US 2018/0301629 A1, hereafter Hatakeyama) as evidenced by Takahashi et al. (US 2017/0271610 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 23-29, Kadoma discloses an organic electroluminescence device comprising an anode, an emitting layer (compound PCPDBq as a host, compound PCBNBB as a host, and an Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm) as a dopant), and a cathode (light emitting element 11 in [0471]-[0476], Table 5), wherein the PCPDBq is a first compound; the PCBNBB is a second compound; Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm) is a first luminescent compound, and the emitting layer materials are a composition.
PNG
media_image3.png
360
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The organic electroluminescent device of Kadoma has the emitter Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm) which emits orange light, not white light. However, Kadoma does teach white light emitting can be obtained by staking two light emitting units ([0225]).
Yoneda teaches a white light emitting EL device having a structure comprising an anode, a blue emitting layer and an orange emitting layer ([0002], Fig. 5).
Yoneda teaches the layered structure of the EL device of Yoneda provides improved luminous efficiency ([0041]).
Hatakeyama discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising an emitting layer containing a boron compound and an anthracene compound ([0010]).
PNG
media_image7.png
319
682
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hatakeyama teaches the emitting layer comprising Compound 1-2679 as the boron compound (dopant) and Compound 3-4 as the anthracene (host) provides blue emission having peak wavelength of 464 nm (Example 4 in Table 1).
Hatakeyama teaches that the combination of the boron compound and the anthracene compound provides excellent quantum efficiency ([0062]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the organic electroluminescent device of Kadoma by incorporating a blue emitting layer comprising Compound 1-2679 of Hatakeyama as a dopant and Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama as a host between the green emitting layer and cathode, as taught by Kadoma, Yoneda and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting EL device with improved luminous efficiency and excellent quantum efficiency, based on the teaching of Yoneda and Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Organic electroluminescent device of Kadoma as modified by Yoneda and Hatakeyama comprising an anode, a green emitting layer (compound PCPDBq of Kadoma as a host, compound PCBNBB of Kadoma as a host, and an Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm) as a dopant), a blue emitting layer (Compound 1-2679 of Hatakeyama as a dopant and Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama as a host), and a cathode.
With respect to claims 11, 19, 23-28, the combined layer of the green emitting layer and the blue emitting layer is interpreted as a first emitting layer (i.e. a white emitting layer).
The Organic electroluminescent device of Kadoma as modified by Yoneda and Hatakeyama is equated with an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a first emitting layer containing a green emitting sublayer (compound PCPDBq of Kadoma, compound PCBNBB of Kadoma, and an Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm)) and a blue emitting sublayer (Compound 1-2679 of Hatakeyama and Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama), and a cathode, wherein the green emitting sublayer materials are a composition; the PCPDBq of Kadoma is a first compound; the PCBNBB of Kadoma is a second compound; Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama is a third compound; Compound 1-2679 of Hatakeyama is a first luminescent compound whose emission peak wavelength is 464 nm, meeting all the limitations of claims 11, 19, and 23-28.
With respect to claims 11, 19, 23-27, and 29, the green emitting layer and the blue emitting layer are each interpreted as a first emitting layer and a second emitting layer.
The Organic electroluminescent device of Kadoma as modified by Yoneda and Hatakeyama is equated with an organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a first emitting layer (compound PCPDBq of Kadoma, compound PCBNBB of Kadoma, and an Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm)), a second emitting layer (Compound 1-2679 of Hatakeyama and Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama), and a cathode, wherein the first emitting layer materials are a composition; the PCPDBq of Kadoma is a first compound; the PCBNBB of Kadoma is a second compound; Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama is a third compound; Ir(mppr-Me)2(dpm)) is a first luminescent compound, meeting all the limitations of claims 11, 19, and 23-27.
The third Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama reads on the claimed limitations above but fails to teach that the T1 energy of the third Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama is smaller than the T1 energy of the first Compound PCPDBq of Kadoma and the T1 energy of the second Compound PCBNBB of Kadoma.
It is reasonable to presume that the T1 energy of the third Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama is smaller than the T1 energy of the first Compound PCPDBq of Kadoma and the T1 energy of the second Compound PCBNBB of Kadoma..
Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials which result in the claimed property.
Takahashi evidenced that the HOMO and the T1 energies of PCPDBq being -5.83 eV and 2.21 eV (first organic compound in at least Example 37 in Tables 3 and 11); and the HOMO and T1 energies of PCBNBB being -5.43 eV and 2.21 eV (second organic compound in at least Example 48 in Tables 3 and 11).
The instant specification discloses the HOMO and T1 energies of the compound BH2-3 are each 3.01 eV and 1.86 eV (Example 9 in [0743], Table 6). The compound BH2-3 of the instant specification has identical structure as the Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama ([0710]).
Therefore, the T1 energy of the third Compound 3-4 of Hatakeyama is smaller than the T1 energy of the first Compound PCPDBq of Kadoma and the T1 energy of the second Compound PCBNBB of Kadoma, meeting all the limitations of claim 29.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Organic electroluminescent device of Kadoma as modified by Yoneda and Hatakeyama is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977). Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though the rejection is based on Section 103 instead of 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Ito (US 2010/0289013 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Ito teaches a composition comprising a first compound and a second compound; however, Ito does not teach a composition comprising a first and a second compound wherein each of the compounds is represented by formula (H13).
As outlined above, Kubota (EP 2003108) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Kubota teaches a composition comprising a first compound and a second compound; however, Ito does not teach a composition comprising a first and a second compound wherein each of the compounds is represented by formula (H13).
As outlined above, Kadoma (US 2011/0210316 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Kadoma teaches a composition comprising a first compound and a second compound; however, Kadoma does not teach a composition comprising a first and a second compound wherein each of the compounds is represented by formula (H13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. 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.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786