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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the following limitations:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There does not appear to be any support for these “if/then” limitations in the specification as filed 10/05/2022. Applicant has not pointed to any passages to support these limitations and none could be found. While Applicant has support for Y5 to be C(R5a)(R5b), Si(R5a)(R5b), O, S, or N(R5a) and Y6 to be C(R6a)(R6b), Si(R6a)(R6b), O, S, or N(R6a), there is no support for the narrow scenario claimed.
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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US 2019/0363263) (Uno).
In reference to claim 1, Uno teaches a display device (Uno [0003] [0004]) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and a plurality of organic material layers between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein at least one organic material layer among the plurality of organic material layers comprises a compound of the formula 3 as shown below (Uno [0021]).
PNG
media_image2.png
238
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For example, wherein in the formula 3, X5 and X6 are each O, m, a and b are each 0, n is 1, L is a phenyl substituted triazine, R2 and R3 are each phenyl and are combined to form a ring (Uno [0014] to [0021]).
Uno discloses the compound of formula 3 that encompasses the presently claimed compound of formula 1, including wherein in the formula 3, X5 and X6 are each O, m, a and b are each 0, n is 1, L is a phenyl substituted triazine, R2 and R3 are each phenyl and are combined to form a ring. Each of the disclosed substituents from the substituent groups of Uno are considered functionally equivalent and their selection would lead to obvious variants of the compound of formula 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, in the absence of unexpected results, to have selected these substituents among those disclosed for the compound of formula 1 to provide the compound described above, which is both disclosed by Uno and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
For Claim 1: Reads on a device comprising a compound of formula 1 wherein n is 1, m is 1, Y5 is O, Y6 is), Cy1, Cy2, Cy3 and Cy4 are each benzene rings, one of a 1 to a4 is 1 and the others are 0 and the T1 to T4 that is present is bonded to a group of formula 3, one of T14 to T16 is a bond to formula 2, one of T14 to T16 is a phenyl and the other is an n-carbazole, each of X11 to X13 is N.
For Claim 2: Reads on n is 1 and m is 1.
For Claim 3: Reads on formula 1-1.
For Claim 4: Reads on benzene.
For Claim 5: Reads on formula 2-1.
For Claim 6: Reads on formula 2-2.
For Claim 7: Reads on each of X11 to X13 is N.
For Claim 8: Reads on condition 3-1.
For Claim 9: Reads on formula 3-1.
For Claim 10: Reads on hydrogen, phenyl or carbazole.
For Claim 11: Reads on single bond.
For Claim 12: Reads on compound 2.
For Claim 18: Reads on an apparatus.
In reference to claims 13 to 17, Uno teaches the device as described above wherein one of the plurality of organic layers includes the spiro compound. Uno further teaches that among these layers that can comprise the compound are hole transport layers, buffer layers, electron transport layers, blocking layers, injection layers, emission layers among others (Uno [0007] [0077] [0083] [0093] [0095] [0088] etc.) and further that the emission layer can further include known dopants (Uno [0091]) and that the use of the material in an organic layer improves efficiency and device lifetime (Uno [0105]).
Given that Uno discloses the device configuration that encompasses the presently claimed device, including wherein the layer including the compound is an emitting layer or buffer layer as claimed, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use device configuration, which is both disclosed by Uno and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno (US 2019/0363263) (Uno) in view of Song et al (US 2020/0028084) (Song).
In reference to claim 19-20, Uno teaches the display device as described for claim 18 above (Uno [0003] [0004]).
Uno does not expressly teach that this device includes a TFT or a color filter etc. as instantly claimed. With respect to the difference, Song teaches, in analogous art, display devices with similar materials comprising thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes (Song [0132] to [0134]) and a color filter (Song [0143]).
It would have been obvious to use the device configuration of Song including well known elements such as thin film transistors, source and drain electrodes and a color filter with the expectation of providing an organic EL display device with improved color characteristics, efficiency and lifespan (Song abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-18 as unpatentable over Uno previously set forth, Applicant argues the amendment to delete "-N(Q1)(Q₂)" from the lists of R1 to R4, R5a, R5b, R6a, R6b, and R11 to R16, "-N(Q31)(Q32)" from the list of R10a, and "-N(Q21)(Q22)" from the list of substituents for R10a. This argument is not convincing as the group relied upon is a carbazole (a C12 heterocycle).
Applicant further argues that the examples in the specification show that the instant claims give rise to unexpected results in comparison with a device comprising a compound of Uno. This argument has been fully considered but not found convincing for at least the following reasons.
For a finding of unexpected results, the results presented need to be of both statistical and practical significance and be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed (See MPEP 716.02).
First, while the inventive examples allegedly show improvements in driving voltage and efficiency, the specification has provided no information that would allow the analysis of the statistical significance of the results. That is, there is no indication if more than one device was prepared and analyzed for each comparative and exemplary device and there is no information on the reproducibility or precision of the measured parameters presented in the data tables.
Second, the showing of the results of a few examples is not commensurate in scope with the very large number of compounds encompassed by the instant claims. For example, the variables defining a ring system of formula 2 result in claiming many different fused ring systems (easily millions of combinations even without considering possible substitution) whereas all results show only a single ring system with no substituents other than the group of formula 3. These examples are not intended to be interpreted as the only points in which the data in not commensurate in scope with the claims but merely to illustrate how the breadth of the claimed compounds is much larger than that set forth in the examples, these variables resulting in claiming thousands of more compounds and even more devices. As applicant is attesting that the claimed compounds have properties that would not be expected based on the genus as a whole, for example compounds taught by Uno, support for the unexpected results must be provided that covers the scope of what is claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean M DeGuire whose telephone number is (571)270-1027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:00 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, Jennifer A. Boyd can be reached at (571) 272-7783. 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.
/Sean M DeGuire/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786