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
Although newly recited negative limitation would raise new issue since such limitation was not present in any examined claims, a search update has yielded new prior art meeting claim 6 which was indicated allowable. Thus, the finality of the rejection is withdrawn and prosecution is re-opended.
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)(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.
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 2, 3, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 100505376C (June 24, 2009) with Machine translation.
CN teaches the amended Formula I (i.e., homoleptic compounds/facial isomer) at pages 2 and 3 (i.e., compound (4) and (6)) and an Ir complex taught at page 33)) meeting claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 (fifth ligand).
Machine translated CN teaches an OLED comprising an anode, a cathode and an organic layer present between, two electrodes in abstract further meeting claims 14 and 15. Machine translated CN teaches an EL device in line of page 8 meeting claim 18. Machine translated CN teaches employing a host material in the abstract and thus a blend of the compound (4) and (6)) and an Ir complex and the host would meet claim 20.
Thus, the instant invention lacks novelty.
Claims 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 100505376C (June 24, 2009) with Machine translation as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Layek et al. (US 2017/0309838 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 17 and 19, Layek et al. teach the recited various consumer product of claim 19 in claim 16 and the instant host of claims 16 and 17 in [0078].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective
filing date of invention to utilize the art well known hosts taught by Layek et al. in a light-emitting layer of the OLED taught by CN since Machine translated CN teaches utilization of hosts in the abstract and further to obtain the art well known consumer products thereof.
Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
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.
CLAIM OBJECTION
Claims 4, 11 and 13 are 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.
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