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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 10 each include the following limitation: “provided that when R1 is Formula 5-11, then L1 is not a phenylene group.” There is no apparent support for this sort of “if/then” limitation in the specification. While support exists for wherein L1 can be limited to specific groups and R1 can be limited to specific groups, there does not appear to be supporting disclosure the linkage of two such conditions generally as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al (WO 2016/105123) (Bae).
In reference to claims 10 and 15-20, Bae teaches a compound Inv-660 as shown below that reads on the instant claims (Bae [0104]).
PNG
media_image1.png
188
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For Claim 10: Reads on formula 1 wherein L1 is biphenylene, L2 and L3 are each a bond, R1 is a group of formula 5-11, R2 is a fluorenyl, R3 is a phenyl, R21 is phenyl, R22 is phenyl, R23 and R24 are each hydrogen.
For Claim 15: Reads on R21 is a phenyl.
For Claim 16: Reads on R22 is phenyl.
For Claim 17: Reads on R2 is fluorenyl.
For Claim 18: Reads on formula 6-1 wherein X is gem-dimethyl methylene.
For Claim 19: Reads on 7-3.
For Claim 20: Reads on a π-electron rich group (note the instant specification defines this to be “a cyclic group that has three to sixty carbon atoms and does not include *—N=*′ as a ring-forming moiety” and phenyl meets this definition).
In reference to claims 12-14, the claims further limit the groups of formula (2), which are optional embodiments of claim 10 (e.g. R2 is a group represented by Formula 2 or a C6-C60 condensed…) and therefore not required. As such, claims 12-14 are rejected based on similar reasons to claim 10.
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.
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 1-4, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (WO 2016/105123) (Bae).
In reference to claims 1-4 and 7, Bae teaches the compound as described above for claim 10 and further teaches that the compound is for use in an organic EL device comprising an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, a light emitting auxiliary layer, a light emitting layer, a hole electron transport layer, an electron injection layer and a cathode (in that order) and specifically points to wherein a hole transport or a light emitting auxiliary layer includes the compound Bae teaches that the use of these compounds in a device improves efficiency, brightness, driving voltage and lifetime and that it can be incorporated into a full color display (Bae [0061] to [0062] [0078] to [0080]).
Given that Bae discloses the device that encompasses the presently claimed device structure, including the compound above as hole transport material, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the device structure, which is both disclosed by Bae and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claims 11, Bae teaches a compound Inv-552 as shown below (Bae [0104]) and teaches that groups R1 can be a phenyl group (Bae claim 1, [0228]).
Bae discloses the compound that encompasses the presently claimed compound, including wherein R1 is a phenyl. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Bae are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of R1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Bae and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 11: Reads on formula 1 wherein L1, L2 and L3 are each a single bond, R1 is a group of formula 5-6, R2 is a fluorenyl, R3 is a biphenyl, R21 is phenyl, R22 is biphenyl, R23 and R24 are each hydrogen.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al (WO 2016/105123) (Bae) in view of Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claim 8-9, Bae teaches the full color display device as described for claim 7.
Bae does not expressly teach that it the display device comprises the claimed features of a thin film transistor or a color filter etc. as instantly claimed. With respect to the difference, Song teaches, in analogous art, display devices with similar materials comprising thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes (Song [0132] to [0134]) and a color filter (Song [0143]).
It would have been obvious to use the device configuration of Song including well known elements such as thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes and a color filter with the expectation of providing an organic EL display device with improved color characteristics, efficiency and lifespan (Song abstract).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al (US 2008/0023724) (Takeda) in view of Bae et al (WO 2016/105123) (Bae).
In reference to claims 5-6, Takeda teaches a light emitting element comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, an emitting layer and a capping layer on the second electrode that includes a triaryl amine derivative or a carbazole derivative (Takeda Abstract).
Takeda does not expressly teach that the triaryl amine derivative or a carbazole derivative is the instantly claimed materials.
With respect to the difference, Bae teaches a compound as shown below that is both a triarylamine and a carbazole (Bae [0104]) and further teaches that the use of these compounds in a device improves light emission performance, efficiency, driving voltage and lifetime (Bae [0080]).
PNG
media_image2.png
162
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the motivation of using the compound as described above, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the compound as described by Bae in order to improve light emission performance, efficiency, driving voltage and lifetime and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the prior art of record. However, as pointed to above herein, the prior art still teaches the claimed invention.
Further, Applicant argues that the limitations of claims 12-14 are not drawn to optional embodiments. However, this is not the case. These claims limit groups of formula 2, a group that is not required based on the Markush group language of the claims from which they depend.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786