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
Applicant’s election of a compound (029) in the reply filed on December 26, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The Examiner examines the elected compound (029). The Examiner further elects a compound (i.e., the last compound at page 70) taught in WO 2021/172905 A1 and other species falling with scope of the instantly recited organic compound represented by General Formula (G1) of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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)(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.
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 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/172905 A1 (Sep. 2, 2021) with Machine translation.
Although WO was published on September 2, 2021, it has a filing date of February 25, 2021 as shown at the front page. Thus, WO is a valid prior art under 102(a)(2).
WO teaches organic light-emitting devices in abstract and a compound (i.e., the last compound at page 70) falling within scope of the instantly recited organic compound represented by General Formula (G1) of claim 1.
Thus, the instant invention lacks novelty.
Regarding claim 5, Machine translated WO teaches an organic light emitting device having a structure of substrate/anode/electron blocking layer/light emitting layer comprising an anthracene compound/cathode which would meet claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, WO teaches two organic layers comprising two different compounds in abstract.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, WO teaches the same compound claimed and thus it would be expected to emit blue fluorescence inherently. The court held that “a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable”, In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 42, 51 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2112.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/172905 A1 (Sep. 2, 2021) with Machine translation as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9 above, and further in view of Conley et al. (US 2005/0211958 A1), Klubek et al. (US 2014/0151676 A1) or Xia et al. (US 10,418,562).
The instant claims further recite an organic light-emitting devices a different layered structure (i.e., the light-emitting compound in a third layer) over WO’905.
Organic light-emitting devices different layered structures are known in the art.
Conley et al. teach an organic light emitting device having a structure of substrate/anode/hole injection layer/hole transporting layer//light emitting layer comprising an anthracene compound/electron transporting layer/cathode in Fig. 1 and [0043] meeting claim 7.
Klubek et al. teach an organic light emitting device having a structure of substrate/anode/hole injection layer/hole transporting layer//light emitting layer comprising an anthracene compound/electron transporting layer/electron injecting layer/cathode in Fig. 1 and [0019] meeting claim 7.
Xia et al. teach an organic light emitting device having various layered structures in line 49 of col. 4 to line 45 of col. 5. Xia et al. further teach modifications to the layered structures and materials used in line 46 of col. 5 to line 4 of col. 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to obtain the recited layered structure of claim 7 from WO with teaching of Conley et al., Klubek et al. or Xia et al. since WO’ teaches various layered structures and since organic light-emitting devices different layered structures are known in the art as taught by Conley et al., Klubek et al. or Xia et al. and since WO’905 teaches two layers comprising different organic light emitting organic compounds and since Xia et al. further teach modifications to the layered structures and materials used absent showing otherwise.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 10, WO teaches the same compound claimed and thus it would be expected to emit blue fluorescence inherently. The court held that “a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable”, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 42, 51 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2112.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/256480 A1 (Dec. 24, 2020).
WO teaches a light-emitting compound comprising an anthracene moiety at page 19 (i.e., a second compound).
The instant invention further recites that the anthracene moiety is further substituted with at one deuterium over WO.
WO further teaches that R1 of formula 1 in [16] of page 2 includes the deuterium in [23] of page 3. WO teaches the anthracene moiety substituted with deuterium in [0192] of page 30.
Deuterium is translated into Korean as 중수소 (jung-su-so) recited as a second substituent (Korean -중수소) for R1 in the [23]. Applicant can confirm this by searching on Google.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to obtain the recited light-emitting compound comprising an anthracene moiety taught at page 19 (i.e., a second compound) of WO further substituted with deuterium since WO teaches such modification and since WO teaches the anthracene moiety substituted with deuterium in [0192] absent showing otherwise.
See In re Mills, 477 F.2d 649, 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA), In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976): Reference must be considered for all that it discloses and must not be limited to preferred embodiments or working examples. MPEP 2123.
Regarding claims 2-4, the above discussed modified compounds of WO would make the compounds of claims 2-4 obvious.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, WO teaches an organic light emitting device having the instant layered structure in abstract and figure.
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 18, WO teaches the same compound claimed and thus it would be expected to emit blue fluorescence inherently. The court held that “a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable”, In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 42, 51 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2112.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/256480 A1 (Dec. 24, 2020) as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 11, 14, 15 and 18 above, and further in view of Conley et al. (US 2005/0211958 A1), Klubek et al. (US 2014/0151676 A1) or Xia et al. (US 10,418,562).
The instant claims further recite an organic light-emitting devices a different layered structure over WO.
Organic light-emitting devices different layered structures are known in the art.
Conley et al. teach an organic light emitting device having a structure of substrate/anode/hole injection layer/hole transporting layer//light emitting layer comprising an anthracene compound/electron transporting layer/cathode in Fig. 1 and [0043] meeting claims 6 and 7.
Klubek et al. teach an organic light emitting device having a structure of substrate/anode/hole injection layer/hole transporting layer//light emitting layer comprising an anthracene compound/electron transporting layer/electron injecting layer/cathode in Fig. 1 and [0019] meeting claims 6 and 7.
Xia et al. teach an organic light emitting device having various layered structures in line 49 of col. 4 to line 45 of col. 5. Xia et al. further teach modifications to the layered structures and materials used in line 46 of col. 5 to line 4 of col. 6.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to obtain the recited layered structure of claim 7 from WO with teaching of Conley et al. or Klubek et al. since WO’ teaches various layered structures and since organic light-emitting devices different layered structures are known in the art as taught by Conley et al., Klubek et al. or Xia et al. and since WO teaches two layers comprising different organic light emitting organic compounds and since Xia et al. further teach modifications to the layered structures and materials used absent showing otherwise.
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2141.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, WO teaches the same compound claimed and thus it would be expected to emit blue fluorescence inherently. The court held that “a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable”, In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 42, 51 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 16 and 17, the above discussed modified organic light-emitting devices of WO would make claims12, 13, 16 and 17 obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE H YOON whose telephone number is (571)272-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at (571)270-7733. 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.
/TAE H YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762