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
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 2 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. The four options listed in claim 2 are the only four options presented in claim 1. Claim 2 does nothing more than listing them out explicitly.
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 1-2, 7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108586188 A to Cao et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation).
Regarding claim 1, Cao et al. discloses an OLED comprising a chrysene derivative exemplified by
PNG
media_image1.png
316
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see compound A-89 on page 20). This compound is representative of the claimed compound wherein L1-3 = single bond, Ar1,2 = phenyl, R1-3,5-10 = H, and R4 = substituted C6 aryl group wherein the substituent is a C9 heteroaryl group. Since the term “substituted” as used in the claim includes a C2-C30 heteroaryl group (page 6 of the specification), claim 1 is anticipated. See MPEP § 2131.02(II). Claim 2 fails to further limit the scope of claim 1 and it is therefore rejected along with claim 1. Also anticipated are claims 7 and 13-15 (see paragraph [0050] & [0060]).
Claims 1-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0257556 A1 to Lee et al.
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises two host materials, one of which is a chrysene derivative [0042] exemplified by the following compound
PNG
media_image2.png
434
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p. 44). This compound is representative of the claimed compound, wherein R1-10 = H, L1-3 = single bond, and Ar1-2 = naphthyl, and claim 1 is therefore anticipated. So are claims 2-5 and 7. Examples that anticipate claim 6 can be found on page 46. An example that anticipates claim 8 is compound H2-4 on page 30, which is identical to compound [33] of claim 8. Claims 13-15 are disclosed in the abstract and paragraph [0073].
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.
Claims 9-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0257556 A1 to Lee et al. in view of WO 2020/159335 A1 to Kim et al. (see attached machine-generated English-language translation).
Corresponding to the composition of claim 1, Lee et al. discloses the aforementioned composition of the host materials wherein the other host compound, in addition to the cited triazine host compound, is a triarylamine with a general structure of
PNG
media_image3.png
312
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
This triarylamine compound is different from the triarylamine compound of formula 2 in claim 9. However, Kim et al., like Lee et al., discloses an OLED wherein the EML comprises two host compounds: one is a triazine compound and the other is a triarylamine compound, such as the compound
PNG
media_image4.png
152
194
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
which is representative of the claimed compound of formula 2 (see [229]). Thus, upon comparing the two devices disclosed by Lee et al. and Kim et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the device disclosed by Lee et al. by replacing the triarylamine compound with the triarylamine compound suggested by Kim et al. and expect a similar result. Claim 9 is therefore unpatentable for being obvious. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). So are claims 16-18. The features of claims 10-12 are disclosed by Kim et al.
Other Prior Art of Record
The compound of claim 1 is also disclosed by US 2022/0033414 A1, US 2022/0069228 A1, US 2022/0109110 A1, US 2022/0131083 A1, US 2022/0263031 A1 and US 2023/0174544 A1.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU ANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5454. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, 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.
/VU A NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762