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 applications filed in Korea on August 4, 2020 and August 3, 2021.
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 November 21, 2022.
Claims 1 – 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 21, 2022 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 defines ring A in Chemical Formula 1 as “a benzene ring fused with two adjacent pentagonal rings.” However, ring A is drawn between two pyrrole rings. It is unclear if the two adjacent pentagonal rings are meant to refer to the drawn pyrrole rings, or if ring A is intended to be a three-ring condensed structure resulting in a five membered ring of ring A fused to the pyrrole rings drawn in the Formula. Similarly, ring B is defined as an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring fused with an adjacent pentagonal ring. However, ring B is drawn next to a pyrrole ring. It is unclear if the “adjacent pentagonal ring” is meant to refer to the drawn pyrrole ring or if ring B is meant to be a two-ring condensed structure.
For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as encompassing either of the above options.
Claims 2 – 19 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 2, 5, 12 and 19 are 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.
In claim 1, Chemical Formula 1 is shown as
PNG
media_image1.png
200
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein ring A is defined to be a benzene ring fused with two adjacent pentagonal rings, i.e. a fused three ring structure. However, none of the Formulae in claim 2 nor the compounds of claim 5 contain the two additional pentagonal rings as part of ring A as required by the definition of ring A in claim 1.
Similarly, in claim 1, Chemical Formula 3 is shown as
PNG
media_image2.png
266
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where ring B is defined to be a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic or heteroaromatic ring fused with an adjacent pentagonal ring. However, many of the Formulae in claim 12, including Formula 3-1 to 3-6 and many of the compounds in claim 19 do not contain the second pentagonal ring as required by the definition of ring B in claim 1.
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 § 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 1 – 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata (KR20200083171A1, using the provided machine translation).
As per claims 1 – 4, 6 – 12, 17 and 18, Numata teaches:
An organic light emitting device, comprising an anode, a cathode, and a light emitting layer between the anode and the cathode (Page 1, Paragraphs 6 – 10: “According to one aspect, the first electrode; a second electrode, and a light emitting layer interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode. The light emitting layer includes a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound.”
Wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image3.png
196
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Numata teaches that the second compound may be at least one compound represented by Formula 2-4
PNG
media_image4.png
178
304
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Page 2, Paragraph 1). A particular compound taught by Numata within the scope of Formula 2-4 is
PNG
media_image5.png
396
338
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Page 23 of the KR patent application). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein A is a benzene ring; Ar1 and Ar2 are each a substituted C6 aryl, namely terphenyl groups as required by claim 3; a is 0 so that the corresponding R group does not exist. The compound reads on Chemical Formula 1-4 in claim 2.)
Wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Chemical Formula 2
PNG
media_image6.png
232
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Numata teaches that the second compound may be at least one compound represented by Formula 2-1
PNG
media_image7.png
156
356
media_image7.png
Greyscale
( Page 2, Paragraph 1). Numata teaches that the second compound is a hole transporting host having a hole transporting ability and may be a combination of two or more compounds (Page 23, Paragraph 1). A particular compound taught by Numata within the scope of Formula 2-1 is
PNG
media_image8.png
142
104
media_image8.png
Greyscale
( Page 23 of the KR patent application). This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein Ar3 and Ar4 are both a substituted C6 aryl group, namely biphenylyl groups as required by claim 7; b and c are each independently an integer of 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist. This compound reads on Chemical Formula 2-1 of claim 6. This is the same compound as
PNG
media_image9.png
218
158
media_image9.png
Greyscale
in claim 10 on page 25.)
Wherein the light emitting layer comprises a compound of Chemical Formula 3
PNG
media_image10.png
262
336
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(Numata teaches that the light emitting layer contains a compound of Formula 1-4
PNG
media_image11.png
128
222
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(Page 1, Last Paragraph). Numata teaches that the first compound is an electron transporting host having electron transporting ability (Page 21, Paragraph 1). A particular compound within the scope of Formula 1-4 is compound 371
PNG
media_image12.png
206
250
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. This compound reads on the claimed Formula wherein B is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic ring, namely a benzene ring as required by claim 11; X1 to X3 are each N; Ar5 is a substituted C6 aryl and Ar6 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; Ar7 is an unsubstituted C6 aryl; L1 is a single bond; d and e are 0 so that the corresponding R groups do not exist. The compound is represented by Formula 3-1 in claim 12.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the light emitting layer of Numata with one electron transport host and two hole transporting hosts wherein the three host materials read on the claimed Formulae because Numata teaches a light emitting layer with a first electron transporting host and a second hole transporting host (Page 21, Paragraph 1 & Page 23, Paragraph 1). Numata further teaches that the hole transport host may be a combination of two or more of the hole transporting host materials taught (Page 23, Paragraph 1).
As per claim 5, the only difference between compound HT-HOST-D above and claimed compound
PNG
media_image13.png
194
174
media_image13.png
Greyscale
on page 21 is the terphenyl substituent on the bottom pyrrole is a biphenyl group in the claimed compound. However, in the definition for c16 in Formula 2-4, Numata teaches that c16 may be an integer of 1 to 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compound HT-HOST-D above to change c16 from an integer of 2 to an integer of 1 and arrive at the claimed compound.
Numata includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention and Numata being a lack of the aforementioned combination being explicitly stated. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any known substituent from each of the finite lists of possible combinations to arrive at the compound of the instant claim since the combination of elements would have yielded the predictable results of an hole transporting host having hole transporting ability (Page 23, Paragraph 1), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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