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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13, and 18 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 as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottas et al. (US 2015/0287933 A1) in view of Sugino et al. (WO 2016/129672 A1) and Zeng et al. (US 2016/0293853 A1) as set forth in the Final Rejection filed 02/05/26 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottas et al. (US 2015/0287933 A1) in view of Sugino et al. (WO 2016/129672 A1) and Kim et al. (KR 10-2018-0012499).
Examiner’s Note: The Office has relied upon national phase publication US 2018/0037546 A1 as the English equivalent of publication WO 2016/129672 A1 (herein referred to “Sugino et al.”). Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the national phase publication.
The Office has relied on the Machine English translation of foreign document publication KR 10-2018-0012499 (herein referred to as “Kim et al.”) as the English equivalent. Unless otherwise noted, all figure, page, and paragraph numbers referenced herein refer to numbers found in the Machine English translation.
Kottas et al. discloses the following organic electroluminescent (EL) device for the construction of displays and light sources ([0039]):
PNG
media_image1.png
824
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1) comprising substrate (110), anode (115), hole-injecting layer (120), hole-transporting layer (125), electron-blocking layer (130), light-emitting layer (135), hole-blocking layer (140), electron-transporting layer (145), electron-injecting layer (150), protective layer (155), and cathode (160) ([0032]); Kottas et al. discloses its inventive compounds are useful as hosts (in the light-emitting layer) and/or electron-blocking layer materials (Abstract; [0091]). Kottas et al. further discloses the use of a phosphorescent (emissive) dopant materials, including transition metal complexes which can be combined with its inventive host material (in the light-emitting layer) ([0092]). Kottas et al. disclose a formulation comprising its inventive compound, which can further include solvent and/or “wide variety of” host material(s) ([0100]-[0101]). However, Kottas et al. does not explicitly disclose a compound of Applicant’s formula (1) nor at least one compound of Applicant’s formulae (2j), (2k), and (2l).
Sugino et al. discloses compounds of the following form:
PNG
media_image2.png
252
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 14); an embodiment is disclosed:
PNG
media_image3.png
263
883
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(pages 75-76) such that Y = O, n = m = 0, o = p = 0, X = C, L = single bond, X1 = N, and Ar1 = aryl group which has 6 aromatic ring atoms (phenyl) of Applicant’s formula (1). Sugino et al. discloses its inventive compound as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device which, when used, results in a device with high luminous efficiency and long life (Abstract; [0060]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the compound as disclosed by Sugino et al. (above) (as additional host material) into the formulation as disclosed by Kottas et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Sugino et al., which discloses that the utilization of its inventive compounds in such a manner results in a device with high luminous efficiency and long life. However, Kottas et al. in view of Sugino et al. does not explicitly disclose at least one compound of Applicant’s formulae (2j), (2k), and (2l).
Kim et al. discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image4.png
151
167
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 17 of Kim et al.) such that u = v = w = s = 0 and Ar3 = Applicant’s Formula Ar-3 (with R3 = H) of Applicant’s Formula (2k) as host material in the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device, the use of which results in increased light-emitting efficiency of an organic EL device ([0064], [0103]). It would have been obvious to further incorporate the above compound as disclosed by Kim et al. into the formulation as disclosed by Kottas et al. in view of Sugino et al. The motivation is provided by the disclosure of Kim et al. which discloses its inventive compounds to be host materials, the use of which results in an organic EL device with improved light-emitting efficiency.
Response to Arguments
9. The Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-17 with respect to the deficiencies of the previously cited prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1137. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6am-3pm.
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 A 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.
/JAY YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights