DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there are several chemical structure entries throughout the specification that are difficult to discern due to low image quality. Specifically, the structures H-1 through H-15 (pg. 14), H-61 through H-65 (pg. 17), H-116 through H-128 (pgs. 20-21), C-66 through C-70 (pg. 28), C-86 through C-90 (pg. 29), and C-196 through C-200 (pg. 35).
3. Structures H-1 through H-5 (pg. 14) and C-196 through C-200 (pg. 35) are reproduced below as representative examples.
PNG
media_image1.png
205
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
209
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 3 and 5-6 objected to because of the following informalities: there are chemical structure entries in these claims that are difficult to discern due to low image quality.
6. Regarding claim 3, several of the structures depicting Formulae 2-1 through 2-12 are of different sizes and aspect ratios.
7. Regarding claim 5, the structures H-1 through H-15, H-61 through H-65, and H-116 through H-128 are difficult to discern.
8. Regarding claim 6, the structures C-66 through C-70, C-86 through C-90, and C-196 through C-200 are difficult to discern.
9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2020/0308201 A1).
15. Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a composition including a first compound, a second compound, and a third compound (Abstract) wherein the second and third compounds may serve as a plurality of host materials in an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0284]).16. Lee teaches compounds H1-20 (pg. 71) and H2-17 (pg. 82) as the second and third compounds, respectively, and the structures of both are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
315
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
283
274
media_image4.png
Greyscale
17. Compound H1-20 reads on Formula 1 wherein:
PNG
media_image5.png
101
128
media_image5.png
Greyscale
represents Formula 1-1;
X1-X12 of Formula 1-1 represent C atoms with H atom substituents;
L represents a single bond and;
Ar represents a substituted C6 arylene.
18. Compound H2-17 reads on Formula 2 wherein:
Y1 represents an O atom;
R1, R2, and R3 all represent H atoms;
a is equal to 3, b is equal to 2, c is equal to 4;
L4 represents a single bond and;
Ar4 represents a substituted N atom-containing heteroaryl substituent.
19. Lee does not disclose a particular embodiment that combines compounds H1-20 and H2-17, specifically, as a plurality of host materials. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine compounds H1-20 and H2-17, because it would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of compounds useful as host materials in the light-emitting layer of the organic electroluminescent device of Lee and possessing the benefits taught by Lee (ex. low driving voltage, high external quantum efficiency, and long lifespan; see ¶ [0283]).
20. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional devices comprising compounds H1-20 and H2-17 as a plurality of host materials having the benefits taught by Lee in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success, absent any indication of unexpected results. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
21. Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches that compounds H1-20 and H2-17 (vide supra) may serve as a plurality of host materials in an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0284]) and both of which satisfy all of the limitations outlined in claim 2.
22. Regarding claims 3-4, Lee teaches that compound H2-17 (vide supra) may serve as a component of a plurality of host materials in an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0284]).
23. Compound H2-17 reads on Formula 2-4 (as per claim 3) wherein:
Y1 represents an O atom;
R1, R2, and R3 all represent H atoms;
a is equal to 3, b is equal to 2, c is equal to 4;
L4 represents a single bond and;
Ar4 represents a substituted N atom-containing heteroaryl substituent.
24. Compound H2-17 reads on Formula 2’-1 (as per claim 4) wherein:
T1, T2, and T3 all represent N atoms and;
R4 and R5 represent C6-aryl substituents.
25. Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches compounds H1-20 (vide supra) may serve as a component of a plurality of host materials in an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0284]). Compound H1-20 reads on compound H-66 of claim 5, the structure of which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image6.png
281
178
media_image6.png
Greyscale
26. Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches compounds H2-17 (vide supra) may serve as a component of a plurality of host materials in an organic light-emitting device (¶ [0284]). Compound H2-17 reads on compound C-1 of claim 6, the structure of which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image7.png
200
140
media_image7.png
Greyscale
27. Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches an organic light-emitting device including a first electrode, a second electrode, and an emission layer disposed between the first and second electrodes (¶ [0038]). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the composition including the second and third compounds may be present in the emission layer (¶ [0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandon J. Cooper whose telephone number is (571)272-0005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/B.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1786