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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on April 30, 2020.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on September 30, 2022.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 30, 2022, July 2, 2024 and January 6, 2025 have been considered. Signed copies of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because under CFR 1.84(u), “Where only a single view is
used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because in accordance with the drawing objection presented above, all mentions to FIG. 1 should be deleted and instead replaced with the words “the
FIGURE.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 shows Formula 1 in which ring A is presented with benzene rings in a para position
PNG
media_image1.png
230
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. This Formula is narrower than Formulae (2), (3), (4) and (7),
PNG
media_image2.png
230
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
202
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
184
350
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
374
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. These formulae show the benzene rings in an ortho or meta position, where the bonding of the ring is provided in a location shown in Formula 1 as either a hydrogen or an Ar3 substituent. Therefore, the compounds are outside the scope of Formula 1 in claim 1 and fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 – 7 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (US20140077179A1).
As per claims 1 – 7 and 16 – 20, Shin teaches:
A material for an organic electroluminescent device comprising a compound represented by the following general formula (1)
PNG
media_image6.png
226
306
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Shin teaches compounds for an organic electronic material (Abstract). The compounds are of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image7.png
226
314
media_image7.png
Greyscale
([0009]). A particular compound taught by Shin is compound 25
PNG
media_image8.png
342
312
media_image8.png
Greyscale
on page 62. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein ring A is a heterocycle represented by formula (1a) and ring A is fused to an adjacent ring; Ar1 represents an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms; Ar2 is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms; d is 0 so that L1 does not exist; L2 represents an unsubstituted aromatic heterocyclic group having 4 carbon atoms; Ar3 represents an unsubstituted carbazolyl group; a and c are an integer of 0; b is an integer of 1; e is an integer of 2. The compound is represented by Formula 6 in claim 5.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US20140077179A1) as applied to claims 1 – 7 and 16 – 20 above.
As per claims 8, 10 and 11, Shin does not specifically teach the use of compound 25 in a device. Shin does teach
An organic electroluminescent device having a plurality of organic layers between an anode and a cathode, wherein at least one layer of the organic layer comprises the material for an organic electroluminescent device, wherein the organic layer is a light-emitting layer ([0021]: “The present invention provides an organic electroluminescent device, and the organic electroluminescent device according to the present invention is characterized by including: a first electrode; a second electrode; and one or more organic material layers interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode. Here, the organic material layer may include one or more compounds for an organic electronic material of Chemical Formula 1. The organic material layer may include a luminescent layer, and the compound for an organic electronic material of Chemical Formula 1 is used as a host material in the luminescent layer.”)
Wherein the light-emitting layer contains at least one light-emitting dopant ([0022]: “When the compound for an organic electronic material of Chemical Formula 1 is used as a host material in the luminescent layer, one or more phosphorescent dopants may be included therein.”)
Shin teaches an anode, a cathode, and an organic layer and that the compound is in the organic layer as discussed above. It would have been obvious to use the compound in the organic layer with the device structure of Shin as Shin demonstrates this device structure was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US20140077179A1) as applied to claims 1 – 8, 10, 11 and 16 – 20 above, and further in view of Tada (US20180138420A1).
As per claims 9, and 12 – 15, Shin does not teach:
The organic electroluminescent device comprising the material for an organic electroluminescent device and also at least one of the compounds represented by formula (8)
PNG
media_image9.png
224
298
media_image9.png
Greyscale
A method for producing the organic electroluminescent device comprising providing a mixed composition and producing a light-emitting layer by use of the mixed composition
Wherein a difference in 50% by weight reduction temperatures of the material for an organic electroluminescent device is within 20°C
Tada teaches organic electroluminescent devices comprising a light emitting material with a host material comprising a mixture of a first host and a second host, wherein the first host comprises a heterocyclic group bonded to a nitrogen atom of an indolocarbazole ring (Abstract). Within the formula of the indolocarbazole, Tada allows for the indolocarbazole to contain a carbazole substituent ([0041]). This is structurally similar to the host material of Shin. Tada teaches that these host materials are used in combination with biscarbazole groups, such as compound 2-1
PNG
media_image10.png
296
340
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(0047]). Tada teaches that the use of these compounds in combination provides an organic electroluminescent device with a low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and long lifetime (Abstract). Compound 2-1 reads on the claimed Formula (8) wherein Ar4 is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 10 carbon atoms, and Ar5 is an unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 carbon atoms. Tada teaches that the first host and the second host are preliminarily mixed and then simultaneously vapor deposited ([0066]). Tada teaches that it is preferred that a difference in 50% by weight reduction temperatures of the two host materials for the organic electroluminescent device is 20°C or less so that the organic electroluminescent device has satisfactory characteristics and is reproduced with satisfactory reproducibility ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound of Shin in combination with a compound of 2-1, motivated by the desire to predictably produce an organic electroluminescent device with a low driving voltage, high luminous efficiency, and long lifetime as taught by Tada (Abstract). It further would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to produce the light emitting layer by mixing the composition and ensuring that the difference in 50% by weight reduction temperatures of the two host materials for the organic electroluminescent device is within 20°C because Tada teaches that the process was known as a predictably suitable process to produce an organic electroluminescent device with satisfactory characteristics and that is able to be reproduced with satisfactory reproducibility ([0066]).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN106397415, cited in the IDS filed by Applicant on September 30, 2022 teaches at least compound 9, which could be used in a rejection against the claims as currently presented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789